Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:58, 13 January 2018 view sourceGalobtter (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators42,036 edits →Adding criticized as racist to lead: re← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:03, 17 January 2025 view source Gluonz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,860 edits →Changing first paragraph after the inauguration: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Skip to bottom~~}}		{{pp-blp}}
			{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{not a forum}}
	{{~~controversial~~}}		{{Controversial}}
	{{~~tmbox~~		{{Calm}}
			{{Warning RS and OR}}
	\|image = ]
			{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
	\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?''' Most often, it should not go here. <br/> Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
			{{tmbox
	* ]
			\|image = ]
	* ]
			\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
	* ]
			{{div col}}
	* ]
			* ]
	* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	…or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
			* ]
			{{div col end}}
			... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
	}}		}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{Talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
	{{American politics AE}}
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|activepol=no\|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
	{{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}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Business\|class=B~~\|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Donald~~ ~~Trump\|class=B~~\|importance=~~Top~~}}		{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject ~~New~~ ~~York~~ ~~City\|class=B~~\|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Politics\|class=B\|importance=mid\|American=Yes~~\|~~American-~~importance=~~Top~~}}		{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject ~~United~~ ~~States\|class=B~~\|importance=~~Top~~\|~~USTV~~=Yes\|~~USTV~~-importance=~~Mid~~\|~~USGov=Yes\|USGov~~-~~importance~~=~~High~~\|~~USPE=Yes\|USPE~~-~~importance=Top\|USPresidents=Yes\|USPresidents~~-importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
	{{~~WP1.0~~ ~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=~~High \|v0.7=pass~~ \|~~category~~=~~socsci~~		{{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}}
	\| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
	\| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
	\| b3 <!--Structure --> = no
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
	\| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
	\| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
	\| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes
	}}
	}}		}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
	{{Article history		{{Article history
			\|action1=GAN
	\|action1=GAN \|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) \|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing \|action1result=failed \|action1oldid=56507759
			\|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	\|action2=GAN \|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) \|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed \|action2result=failed \|action2oldid=107442121
			\|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing
	\|action3=GAN \|action3date=04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) \|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1 \|action3result=failed \|action3oldid=739866707
			\|action1result=failed
	\|action4=GAN \|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) \|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2 \|action4result=failed \|action4oldid=782109977
			\|action1oldid=56507759
	\|currentstatus=FGAN

	\|topic=Politics and government
			\|action2=GAN
			\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
			\|action2result=failed
			\|action2oldid=107442121

			\|action3=GAN
			\|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
			\|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
			\|action5result=failed
			\|action5oldid=870721866

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

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

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

			\|currentstatus=FGAN
			\|topic=Politics and government
	}}		}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request\|Lionsdude148\|This is the President of the United States}}
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016) \| reviewers = ]}}
			\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
	{{American English}}
	{{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/		\|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		\|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
Line 50:		Line 94:
	\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html		\|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		\|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016 \|author4=Germ, Erik \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
	\|url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/		\|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		\|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/		\|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		\|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/		\|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		\|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		\|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		\|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		\|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		\|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/		\|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}}
	}}		}}

	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Maryland/INST201-0101_Introduction_to_Information_Science_(FALL_2017) \| assignments = ] }}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 70		\|counter = 187
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|archiveheader = {{~~tan~~}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft = 6		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}
	{{auto archiving notice
	\|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
	\|age = 7
	\|small=
	}}
	{{Top25 \| place = \| week = ]; ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], 2016; ] and ], 2017}}
	{{Annual readership}}
	{{TOC_limit\|4}}

			__TOC__
	== Open RfCs and surveys ==
	* ]
	* ]

			== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
	{{/Current consensus}}		{{/Current consensus}}


			== Racially charged ==
	==Global warming position==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
	'''Not convinced''' that the section dealing with Trump's position on climate change is representative of the facts. To say that Trump does not accept the science sounds rather too legitimate, as if he has a well-considered contrary position. This is followed by a sentence which states that he said in 2012 that climate change is a hoax, but that he was joking - as if it was a mere false step, or that he has even an iota of credibility in this area whatsoever.
			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)
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 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. ] (]) 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.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	We know that he continued with his conspiracy theory in December 2013:

			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)
	* http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/you-are-so-stupid-it-painful-trump-blasted-saying-us-could-use-good-old-global-warming-1653076
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Support removal''', per ]'s comment (they've already written everything). ] (]) 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	... and several times in 2014:

			== Tracking lead size ==
	* https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
			\| content =
			— '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	... and in 2015 and 2016:

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	* http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
			}}
	* https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content =
			— '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	... and of course we have seen in the last few days of 2017 a lot of headlines about buffoonish comments on global warming thanks to some localized snowfall.

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	Here are some more sources, all of which describe or characterize Trump as a denialist or conspiracy theorist:

			— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
	* https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/president-trump-global-climate-change-denial-environment/
			}}
	* https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/
			{{hidden
	* https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-climate-change-denial
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	* http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37936740/what-climate-change-deniers-like-donald-trump-believe
			\| header =
	* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-not-deleting-climate-change-denial-tweets-despite-chinese-hoax-global-warming-claims-a7332396.html
			— '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
	* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-19/how-trump-climate-denial-is-catalyzing-the-world-quicktake-q-a
			\| content =
			— '''432''' = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169
			}}

			== Tracking article size ==
	There are hundreds more.
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
			\| content =
			— 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	* Propose that the current formulation:

			— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
	'''Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2012, he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but later said that he was joking.'''
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
			\| content =
			— 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80
	... should read:

			— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190
	'''Trump is a climate change denier. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China.''' ] (]) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
	:I don't think you'll find good enough sourcing to use the term "''denier''". Most ] don't use that term when describing Trump and this article should reflect mainstream viewpoints. ] (]) 12:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
			}}
	:: You mean apart from the BBC, The Independent, National Geographic, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, CBS News, Newsweek, HuffPost, The Guardian? Denying denialism? ] (]) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 14,681 – 404,773 – 187
			\| content =
			— 14,756 – 403,398 – 191
			}}

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
	:::You didn't provide any sources to back up your claim. I checked the four listed in the OP and none of them label Trump as a "denier". But should you find any, please don't cherry-pick. Our goal is not to find the most incriminating sources and use them to write an article. Instead, Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent mainstream viewpoints. ] (]) 12:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
			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)
	:::: If one has many cherries, it may that one is being selective. Or one may simply be standing in a cherry-tree orchard. All the following describe Trump as denying, being a denier/denialist/disbeliever, or being considered a denier:

			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::: * https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/673005/Trump-the-climate-change-denier-Republican-hires-top-sceptic-as-energy-advisor/amp
			:'''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)
	:::: * https://thinkprogress.org/trump-even-gets-climate-denial-wrong-889a61198961/
			:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-hurricane-trump-taps-climate-change-denier-nasa-article-1.3464200
			:'''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)
	:::: * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-myron-ebell-are-climate-deniers-dream-team-heres-why-1592338
			:'''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)
	:::: * https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-why-trump-denies-climate-change-10677570
			:'''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)
	:::: * https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44720/Climate+change+denier+Donald+Trump+takes+US+out+of+Paris+climate+deal
			:'''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)
	:::: * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/beijing-to-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-chinese-hoax/
			*'''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)
	:::: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/03/13/trumps-epa-chief-is-a-climate-change-denialist-why-is-anyone-surprised/#ecbf01822fc7
	:::: * https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/what-are-donald-trumps-policies-climate-change-and-other-environmental-issues
	:::: * https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/
	:::: * https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/
	:::: * https://newrepublic.com/article/143066/trumps-cowardly-new-form-climate-change-denial
	:::: * http://prospect.org/article/will-harvey-dent-trump%E2%80%99s-climate-change-denial-probably-not
	:::: * http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/338721-bloomberg-trumps-climate-change-denial-is-embarrassing
	:::: * https://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/denying-climate-change-is-only-part-of-it-5-ways-donald-trump-spells-doom-for-the-environment_partner/
	:::: * https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/donald_trump_s_climate_change_denial
	:::: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/09/trumps-climate-change-denial-rattles-u-s-businesses/?utm_term=.44e8ae4588c9
	:::: * http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-20161127-story.html
	:::: * http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/
	:::: * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html
	:::: Want more? ] (]) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC):

	~~:::::The first link doesn~~'~~t call Trump a denier. The second link isn~~'t a ~~]. The third is an opinion piece and is only reliable~~ for the ~~opinions~~ of ~~its~~ ~~author~~. ~~I stopped at that point.~~ ] (]) 13:48, 29 December ~~2017~~ (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)
	:::::: Nice try. First link: "Donald Trump has cemented his stance as a ‘climate change denier’...". And I'm glad you've stopped. (But if we're focusing on opinions - as if there might be some stone tablet on which Trump is labeled a denier! - here's the opinion of Stephen Hawking:
			*'''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)
	:::::: "By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726.) ] (]) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (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
	:::::::{{EC}} OK, that makes one out of seven (assuming the Express counts as a reliable source and not an opinion piece). Either way, your own sources are proof that that term is not widely used by reliable sources. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
			:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Again, the BBC article you provide says no such thing. That's a quote from (apparently) Stephen Hawking, not BBC News. You are now 1 for 8. ] (]) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (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)
	::::::::: I have no idea how you are scoring this. Interesting that you first said that the article should represent "mainstream viewpoints", but are now dismissing "mainstream viewpoints" as opinion. Are we trying to have it both ways? Anyway, I thought you stopped? ] (]) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	{{od}}Cpaaoi, I agree with the general point you're trying to make. I think you can avoid the argument you're in by using: '''Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China.''' ] (]) 14:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	: I think your version would certainly be an improvement, O3000. I would personally still cleave to denier; if it walks like a denier and it quacks like a denier (and lots of journalists and commentators call it a denier) then it is probably a denier. But that's why I'm asking for opinions here; I'll step back and see what others say. ] (]) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (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.
	:{{EC}} @Cpaaoi: Simple: I am looking for third-party reliable sources which call Trump a denier. Non-reliable sources don't count. Opinion pieces don't count. Quotes don't count. I'm looking for actually, bona-fide news coverage from respected news sources.
			:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Keep in mind that "''denier''" is a ] and a ]. It should only be used when widely used by reliable sources. Quite honestly, it's not widely used by reliable sources and therefore shouldn't be used in this article.
			*'''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.
	: If you want to make another suggestion that doesn't use "''denier''", go ahead. Until then I see this as a non-starter. ] (]) 14:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	:: ~~You've~~ ~~got~~ ~~two~~ ~~long~~ ~~lists~~ ~~above.~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~not~~ ~~going~~ to go ~~further~~ ~~with~~ ~~you,~~ A ~~Quest~~ ~~For Knowledge~~. ] ] (]) 14:32, 29 ~~December~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I'm a volunteer. I don't get paid to check your sources. All I can say is that I checked 8 that '''you''' provided, and at best, only one supports your argument. You need to prove that it's ''widely used''. Instead, your own sources are evidence that it's ''not'' widely used. ] (]) 14:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	:::You may find difficulty getting anyone to look through your list. I saw in the titles socialistworkerparty, stevensalzberg, blogs, and opinion and didn’t bother clicking on the links. Better to have a shorter list of better sources. I also think using ] will result in a year of reverts and arguments. The text can be strengthened without using a contentious label. Also, keep in mind that accusations of ] can be DE. ] (]) 14:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose.''' Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Yes, most of those sources are either unreliable or opinion articles. Most of the sources by mainstream publications like the NYT or WSJ are blogs and opinion articles they decided to publish. I really hope you (Cpaaoi) didn't expect to convince anyone through the socialistworkerparty, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Salon, etc., links. --] (]) 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' proposed change. I honestly don't see the proposed revised text as any improvement on what is already in the article. Even though Trump is ''clearly'' a climate change denier, it is going to be ''very'' difficult to organize a consensus around calling Trump a "climate change denier" in Misplaced Pages's voice. The existing text makes his nonsensical position quite clear, and I feel that is sufficient. -- ] (]) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	*I don't think the proposed sentence is an improvement and labeling someone like that isn't very encyclopedic. However looking at the current sentence makes me want to replace "does not accept" with "rejects". <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	**Replacing "''does not accept''" with "''rejects''" would be fine with me. I'm tempted to make the change myself, but it's probably better to get more feedback given that this is a contentious topic. ] (]) 21:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	***"Rejects" is a YUGE improvement. I would see such a change as a non-controversial improvement to the language. -- ] (]) 14:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
	****It's been several days (well, over a week) so I went ahead and made the change. ] (]) 16:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::* ], . That's simpler, accurate, and makes the point. -- ] (]) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' O3000's version; he's made ample comments since 2012. Oppose using "denier", which has multiple problems. ] (], ]) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

			:'''Support''' since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
	==RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead==
			:And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. ] ] ] 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{rfc\|bio\|pol\|rfcid=E028171}}

	~~Should~~ the ~~lead~~ ~~include~~ ~~mention~~ of ~~the~~ ~~allegations~~ of ~~sexual~~ ~~misconduct~~ on Trump's ~~part?~~ --] (]) 08:02, 4 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*'''Oppose''', the ] is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. ] (]) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Edit War ==
	This would summarize content already in the article body, in ].
			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.
			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. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―] ] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―] ] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
			:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, sounds good to me.
			:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
			:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|who pinned this?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Looks like you made this change re archiving . ] (]) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			]

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	If yes, I tentatively propose the wording {{tq\|"Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of ], which he denied"}}, but I would like to note that the exact wording shouldn't be considered to be set in stone, and that we might need to adjust it as things develop.
			]
			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? ==
	If you agree in principle with the proposal to include mention of the allegations but do not support the exact wording proposed above, you may support the proposal but indicate that you don't support the exact wording proposed – if necessary we will have a new discussion or RfC about the exact wording.

			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)
	===Survey: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead===
	'''Yes''' {{endash}} include in the lead<br />'''No''' {{endash}} do not include in the lead

			: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)
	*'''Yes''': The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump were the most widely covered issue in reliable sources during the presidential election. The issue continues to receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, more than a full year later. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the coverage of the allegations against Trump are linked to a broader discussion of sexual misconduct in society. For examples of recent sources, I refer to the previous discussion we had on this. During his presidential term so far, the sexual misconduct allegations are, next to the Russia issue, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly ''the'' most covered issue.′
			::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)
	:As a rule of thumb, any issue worthy of an in-depth stand-alone article should be considered notable enough for at least a brief mention in the lead section of the main article on the relevant subject. The misconduct allegations have such an in-depth stand-alone article, ]. --] (]) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. ~~Insignificant~~ in ~~relation~~ to ~~the~~ ~~rest~~ of ~~activities.~~ ~~Should~~ he ~~face~~ ~~impeachment~~ or ~~significant~~ ~~legal~~ ~~action~~ ~~this~~ ~~may be different~~. ~~RfC is not neutrally worded.~~] (]) 13:30, 4 January ~~2018~~ (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)
	:*{{tq\|RfC is not neutrally worded.}} Fixed after discussion. ―] ] 16:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' to ~~the~~ ~~idea,~~ ~~but~~ no to ~~the~~ ~~proposed~~ ~~wording.~~ It is ~~very~~ ~~well~~ ~~reported~~ ~~that~~ ~~Trump~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~accused~~ by ~~multiple~~ ~~people~~ on ~~multiple~~ ~~occasions~~, but ~~the~~ ~~dating~~ ~~and~~ ~~number~~ of ~~accusations~~ I ~~don't think are appropriate~~. ] (]) 14:00, 4 January ~~2018~~ (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)
			:::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)
	*'''Yes''' to the idea, but no to the proposed wording (yes, there's an echo in here). I'm uncomfortable with the lede having things like "about 15 women" in it, because it sounds vague. My preferred text would be something like this: {{tq\|"Trump has been credibly accused of ], which he has denied."}} I use "credibly" because the ''Access Hollywood'' tape has him admitting it. -- ] (]) 14:45, 4 January 2018 (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)
	*'''No''' As with my comments regarding ] and ]'s (pre-resignation) ledes, allegations should have some palpable effect on the subject's career before it gets entered into the lede. ] for Al Franken seemed to be headed in to a similar conclusion until his resignation made it redundant. Per ], the introduction should be a short and simple summary of why he is notable. There's no denying that the allegations have received coverage but it's hard to believe that his social media behavior, a daily topic amongst all print and television media, doesn't get more. We even have a lengthy article about that behavior too (]) but it doesn't belong in the lede either. There's also the ] issue; there's very little about the allegations in this article, almost all of the relevant section deals with the Billy Bush tape. We should revisit this if something does happen, which ended up being the case with Franken.] (]) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::: ], ~~WEIGHT??~~ ] ~~and~~ ~~] creates enormous weight~~. -- ] (]) 03:30, 5 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (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)
	:: We can always add the mention of social media later on, but I doubt that people would accept it if this RfC fails. Just to avoid any possible misunderstandings or confusion, I am not saying that we should say yes to this so that people are not dissuaded from future RfC's but just that we should not keep information out of the lead just because we have not decided to yet put other information into the lead. ] (]) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
			:] ] (]) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	*(edit conflict) '''No''' unless it becomes a bigger issue in his life for some other reason, for example a high profile lawsuit. These allegations have simply not impacted him or his biography in a big way. They could be important in the biography of someone who has fewer reasons to be notable, but Trump's biography is so full of notable things that the sexual allegations are not currently worthy of inclusion in the lede. He's been described as "Teflon", i.e., these accusations have failed to stick. And I disagree with your assertion that these allegations are the second-most covered issue related to Trump. How about his finances and refusal to release his tax returns? How about his popularity with, and empowering of, white nationalists? Those things are not in the lede. We have discussed this before; consensus was to include the allegations in the text but not the lede; that's still my opinion. --] (]) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::P.S. I should add that if anything, these allegations are LESS worthy of inclusion now, a year into his very eventful presidency, than they were when we previously reached consensus not to include them. --] (]) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::The passage of time makes these multiple, credible accusations no less ghastly. -- ] (]) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Maybe not, but it adds other information with a higher-priority claim to inclusion in the lede. --] (]) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No'''. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.] (]) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:*{{small\|(Responses moved to Discussion.) ―] ] 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)}}
	*'''No''' The allegations fail weight. ] (]) 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:* ], WEIGHT?? ] and ] creates enormous weight. -- ] (]) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Not so much actually given his overall life and notability. ] (]) 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::: But enough for short mention in the lead. Keep in mind that we aren't just talking about some past events, but an ever-present and unresolved series of accusations, IOW ]. When you see a picture of him, imagine a bucket about to be poured over his head. It's in the picture all the time, until this gets resolved in a court of law. It's a weighty matter. -- ] (]) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::It's undue weight to say that a dude has bragged about "grabbing by the pussy" when he said it? ] ] 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::] is not about moral judgments and nobody here is making a moral judgment argument. At issue (mainly) is amount of RS coverage, and importance relative to the rest of Trump's life. ―] ] 04:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::I've seen plenty of coverage, but I tend more toward liberal news media, maybe they cover that more. ] ] 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per MelanieN.- ] 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per LM200. Unless Trump is forced to resign because of them, the allegations do not belong on the lede. ] (]) 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. In fact, we have '''no other choice''' but to do it without violating LEAD and NPOV. It certainly has the weight (enough for at least two sub-articles), and since it deserves its own section (and articles), it should be mentioned. One sentence may be enough. Failure to mention is a serious multiple-policy violation. -- ] (]) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No.''' I think it violates both ] and ]. ] (]) 03:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' I love that the two prior votes are Yes/No citing violation of the same policy. I think a clearer read is ]. If he had materialized from the ether in 2015, this goes in the lede as proportional. But DT has been a nationally known figure for 35 years; his is a long and meandering story. I would compare and contrast Clinton, whose lede mentions Lewinsky (because of impeachment) but not Jones/Flowers despite them being huge players in his story. For the record, I am a DT hater. ] (]) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (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> ==
	*'''No''' POV, unproven and unimportant in relation to such things as policy and accomplishments. Besides, we now know that some women were paid to claim sexual misconduct by Trump.] (]) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:*{{~~ping~~\|~~Phmoreno}}~~ ~~Who's~~ "~~we"?~~ ~~I don~~'t ~~know~~ ~~that,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~don't~~ ~~see~~ it at ]. ~~Got~~ a ~~solid~~ RS ~~link or a pointer to within that article~~? ―] ] 19:06, 5 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::If I had to guess they probably mean and . People offered money for victims to come forward and the thought was that some might be false just to get the money. Kind of shady but so far no proof that any made it up for the money. ] (]) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. Presenting unproven allegations as fact in the same breath (!vote) as opposing content about allegations because they're unproven. Nice. ―] ] 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per MelanieN. ] (], ]) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' I don't give a rat's ass if we have this discussion every week of every month, until something new comes up I'm going to stick by a big fat NO. Hopefully all of the people pushing this rubbish crap migrate to RationalWiki. ] (]) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per MelanieN and others. I also note in response to Bull ] is at least one recent case of a media frenzy topic which became in time a huge standalone article and is now a much shortened redirect. Cruise and Rrump are both individuals who are in the constant spotlight and could theoretically have dozens or hundreds of articles about them based on news coverage alone. But that is one of the reasons wikipedia is ]. ] (]) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' per Tataral and BullRangifer etc. The lead is currently short, so there is no problem adding this along with the other issues mentioned by MelanieN. ] (]) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''; the coverage is and was overwhelming to the point where it seems silly to say that it is ]. The ] arguments - and, even more vacantly, the argument that some editors don't find the accusations credible - are specious because our job is simply to report what that overwhelming coverage says; the fact that the accusations ''exist'' is well-cited, and the overwhelming waves of coverage surrounding them (combined with continued coverage even today) shows that they are obviously ]. Most of the !votes to omit therefore seem to be a variation on ] - people who recognize that it is well-cited, recognize the heavy coverage, but who feel that the ''coverage itself'' is biased or undue or untrustworthy or something along those lines. But those are not valid arguments, and omitting such an otherwise obviously notable aspect of the topic from the lead would be an unequivocal ] violation itself. --] (]) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	:*Not taking a position (yet), but ] ≠ ]. And I think at least some of the UNDUE !votes are actually BALASP !votes with the wrong shortcut{{emdash}}they are both parts of NPOV{{emdash}}and some people are making BALASP-like arguments without citing it (people in both groups might wish to update their !votes for clarity). Also note that PROPORTION, cited above, is a helpful (not) alias for BALASP. ―] ] 09:55, 6 January 2018 (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)
	*'''No''', not in the lead - per ] guidance to write conservatively and it has not had such a significant impact on his life to suit ]. Mostly it seems an election event, now seeing a bit of post-Weinstein interest but nothing new has happened. Also, I would suggest 'numerous' in the sectionn of the article rather than a specific numbering as the cites say 15 and 17 and 19, and the individuals do not match and not all are current. ] (]) 20:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes, ~~include~~ ~~rape~~ ~~allegations~~ ~~in the introduction.''~~' ~~After~~ ~~discussion~~ on ~~Jimbotalk~~ ~~and~~ ~~reflection.~~ ~~Trump's~~ ~~personality~~ is ~~essential~~ to ~~convey~~ ~~accurately~~. ] (]) 15:26, 7 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		::Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. ] (]) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. ] (]) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*{{ping\|EllenCT}} This RfC has nothing to do with any rape allegations. It's about whether to summarize with one sentence the content at ]. The word rape does not occur there, and none of the allegations there approach rape. You may wish to revise (or re-evaluate) your !vote. ―] ] 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
			::::No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The word "rape" currently occurs ten times in ]. Those accusations should be summarized in the lead of the main article. ] (]) 16:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|EllenCT}} Look a little deeper. The only rape allegation at that article is one Ivana made during their messy divorce, which she has since pretty much disavowed. It is considered so insignificant that it didn't make it into this article. It constitutes maybe 5% of what we would be summarizing in the one sentence here, if that, so the bolded part of your !vote simply misstates the question. Worse, it makes me wonder whether you fully understand the question. ―] ] 10:49, Today (UTC−6)
	:::::, , and should also be summarized here and in the ] articles. ] (]) 17:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' per ]. If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then ] demands inclusion. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	**"''If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then ] demands inclusion.''" Which policy or guideline says that? ] (]) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	***The lead is, ''by definition'', the summary of the most important topics in an article. A topic significant enough to justify a lengthy article of its own makes it one of the most important topics in that article. ] <small>(])</small> 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' It's ] weight. The accusations were a minor scandal and failed to make any significant impact. It's in the body of the article where it should be. ] (]) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:* ?? Some of these accusations have been around for years. They just resurfaced and a few more women came forward. Their due weight is not based on the amount of footage in this article (a section required to be left behind when spinning off a large amount of material), but on the at least two sub-articles on the subject. There is abundant weight. -- ] (]) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::*] isn't determined by its prevalence in other articles (or popularity among Misplaced Pages editors), but its prevalence in third-party ]. ] (]) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::*Agreed. The specific number and nature of extant articles on a current events type topic like this one will almost always be both comparatively incomplete and somewhat biased based on the amount of effort and time any individual editor is willing to expend on it. Also, as I think most of us know, it would certainly be possible to try to game the system by such unbalanced spinout articles by individual editors or groups of editors, knowingly or unknowingly. ] (]) 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No.''' Tough decisions must be made. There simply isn't the real estate for anything on this subject. --] (]) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. Close question. For precedent I checked out ], whose dalliances are mentioned in the lead section. In Trump's case, his sexual behavior practically sank his candidacy. While a close question, not a slam dunk, I would favor yes. {{sbb}} ] (]) 00:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''No''' - For now. Inclusion would give ] weight and they are of course allegations. Mention is the body is adequate. ] (]) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - There is ample policy on both sides of this issue, and no way to weigh it except by gut feel. My gut feel is as follows.<br />] is not about avoiding negative content, and it seems to me we go a little too far in trying to avoid the appearance of anti-Trump bias. Of the 408 words in the lead, the following ''might'' be said to be Trump-negative: "...many of his public statements were controversial or false ... first without prior military or government service ... despite getting less of the popular vote ... election and policies have sparked numerous protests." I don't think that proportion fairly represents the body of reliable sources on Trump. He is objectively one of the two most controversial U.S. presidents since Nixon, Clinton being the other, and our current lead does not reflect that reality. It might as well be talking about Eisenhower. And Trump has been extremely controversial his entire life.<br />I'm not terribly interested in "but what about issues X and Y" reasoning for the purpose of this RfC, as we could still be debating such things when Trump leaves office. Considering the lead's current length relative to the length of the article, there is room to add other things to the lead if they are deemed to have equal or greater importance. That does not need to further complicate this already complicated question in my view. ―] ] 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - According to ], the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". With Trump, this is difficult since he has so many controversies. So I guess we are to determine the most prominent ones that should be summarized in the lead. But it can be argued that the sexual misconduct allegations is the most prominent of his controversies. This was a big part of the campaign coverage, so much so that many in the media felt his campaign was over when the access hollywood tape came out.] (]) 02:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' per Mandruss. I think adding would just be due, but it is complicated. There are other critical stuff I'd like to add to the lead; but I think this should be there, and there is room for it. ] (]) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Discussion: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead===
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 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 ==
	{{cot\|1=Process discussion ] (]) 05:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)}}
	{{u\|Tataral}} The background section just seems to be your rationale and so should be part of your "yes" !vote ] (]) 10:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:I don't see why. The background section is one particular's editor's ''proposal'' (or rationale for the proposal which is the subject of the RfC) which other editors are free to agree or disagree with. It's not supposed to be "neutral". In any event, the particular structure of the RfC was discussed for almost a month (with a draft found here ]) before it was started with no objection to that. --] (]) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::All of the text preceding the first recognizable signature is copied to the RfC listings. That part should be a concise and neutral statement of the question or proposal. I've taken the liberty of copying your signature above and the listings should be updated by the bot within an hour. ―] ] 13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::After reviewing ] and the essay ], I think this is a case where common practice has diverged from the guidelines. As I'm philosophically opposed to that, I now agree that your rationale should be moved to your !vote. Apologies for the bad steer. Although not technically necessary, I would add another sig following your instructions. When this is resolved, this discussion can be collapsed as "Process discussion". ―] ] 14:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Yup, that's why I was asking him to move it. Doesn't make sense to privilege one rationale to appear at the top. ] (]) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Galobtter}} So in your view a 3-word "Support as proposer" !vote would be improper in an RfC? It requires that the proposer's rationale has been previously stated; otherwise it's a vote, not a !vote. ―] ] 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, would be improper I think, better to have the rationale with the !vote. I think this is mostly needed when it is formatted like this, with a seperate sections for the survey and what not. Could confuse/mislead people (inexperienced users etc) to have that there. ] (]) 14:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::I don't understand what you're saying after the first sentence, but I'll read that as a "yes". I have no problem with that, but it confirms that "common practice has diverged from the guidelines." I see "Support as proposer" all the time, including from many very experienced editors. The RfC Reform Movement starts here. ;) ―] ] 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::I can't say I've seen a lot of "support as proposer" !votes in RfCs. TONS of them in AfDs, however. What bugs me the most is how RfCs are now being used at the ''first'' introduction of an idea, rather than as a way to resolve deadlocks, etc. This is particularly a problem in politics-related articles. Why wasn't ''this'' proposal introduced in "regular order" (or whatever you want to call it)? -- ] (]) 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::Huh? This has been discussed multiple times before (recently too), with a mixed response. ] (]) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::<small>{{u\|Mandruss}} more offtopic stuff but people also forget that there's no requirement for RfCs to run 30 days and so much more..</small> ] (]) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::Scjessey, there is some discussion still on this page, and it's been discussed before. I think experience tells us that RfCs are more likely to produce a clear consensus than open discussion, anyway. If we go straight to RfC, we're just saving a ton of time in many cases. ―] ] 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::I think that is a function of how polarized editors have become. More or less every discussion in the US politics topic is now a form of dispute resolution. This is a relatively new development - RfC's were considered one of the last resorts as recently as a couple of years ago. -- ] (]) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'm quite ok with new developments. ―] ] 15:21, 4 January 2018 (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)
	::::::::::We have had endless discussions on this issue, including most recently nearly a full month of discussion on whether to have an RfC. I see that some people are now "voting" against the tentatively proposed wording. That's ok, but it's a pity that they didn't weigh in in the previous discussion during the last month that focused particularly on the proposed wording in the upcoming RfC. --] (]) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
			:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
			:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. ] (]) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)
			::::maybe some people might spread misinformation?
			::::im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here ] (]) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. ] (]) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. ] (]) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? ] (]) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Self-quote from below: {{tq\|In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision.}} Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Misplaced Pages. ―] ] 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected ] (]) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Donald trump is now president. ==
	{{small\|(The following !vote and responses were copied/moved from Survey.) ―] ] 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)}}
	*'''No'''. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.] (]) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	:*In light of ] and Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton, the "innocent until proven guilty" defense looks completely ridiculous. Besides, reliably-sourced information presented in the right weight would not be a BLP-violation. -- ] (]) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	::* ], you've been here long enough to know there is no violation of BLP. There is abundant RS sourcing to document that these allegations exist. That's all we're doing. All other articles for high profile men with such allegations include mention in the lead. Guilt or innocence is totally irrelevant. -- ] (]) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::*Absent specific policy links, I agree with Scjessey and BullRangifer. We don't get to invent our own inclusion criteria and slap policy acronyms on them. I would expect a competent closer to discount that !vote completely. ―] ] 04:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::*Who? It is in ]'s lede because he admitted it. President Trump did no such thing, and it is pure gossip. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything anytime. If the allegations are ever proven to be true, there would still be an issue of weight. Clinton's sexual misconduct led to his near impeachment, yet there is only one sentence buried in the middle of a very long paragraph. It would be totally undue in President Trump's lede, especially now.] (]) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::*{{tq\|it is pure gossip.}} Pure gossip is somebody anonymously starting a rumor on the internet. Pure gossip might be one woman going public with allegations, pinning a target to her own back and adding a ton of stress to her previously peaceful life. Maybe even two women. Keep adding women and at some point you cross a threshold into the territory between pure gossip and court conviction. The threshold number is undefined but it's pretty clear we've crossed it, and I'm fairly certain policy does not prohibit (or require) <u>attributed</u> content in that territory. Argue UNDUE if you like, but calling it "pure gossip" only undermines your argument. And don't argue BLP unless you can point to part of BLP that says BLP-cool content in the body can become BLP-vio when summarized in the lead. ―] ] 10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::*No, the number changes nothing. It's still gossip. There has been no conviction, only allegations.] (]) 10:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::*If there were anything in policy to the effect that presence or absence of a court conviction should figure into our decisions, I suspect you would have linked it by now. If you want to stick to an argument that may be ignored by the closer, I'm sure the Yeses are happy to let you do it. ―] ] 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::* ], now I'm going to question your ] on the subject of BLP. '''Seriously.''' Your ideas are not coming from that policy. We document f###ing EVERYTHING here, including ''serious'' gossip, as long as it's notable enough to be mentioned in RS. Mere garden variety "gossip" is what is pushed only by ''National Enquirer'' and such unreliable sources.
	:::::::: By contrast, this content is from ALL the most notable RS that exist. They are serious allegations of sexual misconduct, groping, and even violent forcible rape of a 13-year old minor at a party held by Trump's good friend for many years, ], who was known to provide underage girls for his party-goers. He is a ] ]. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of ] an ], for which he served 13 months in prison.
	:::::::: No, your competence is sadly lacking. You really need to read BLP. ANY KIND of negative information is ''potential'' content if it's reported in RS. This is major enough to get two articles here, which are abundantly sourced. You can't brush this off as mere "gossip". Guilt or innocence, and lack of any conviction, are totally irrelevant. We are duty bound to document it. We have done that. It is weighty enough for a sentence in the lead, just like all other biographies where this is a topic. -- ] (]) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::Ah, mystery solved. Zigzig20s is applying ] while ignoring (or forgetting) its first sentence. ―] ] 15:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Yes, that first sentence:

			Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	: '''"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are ]; that is, individuals not covered by ]."'''

			:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	We treat private persons with kid gloves, but those gloves come off when dealing with public persons, and the higher up, the more vulnerable they get. They have chosen to let their lives be examined and publicized in embarrassingly close detail, and we must document how RS report it. Exposure comes with their job, and documentation comes with ours. The President of the USA gets ZERO special protection. On the contrary, he gets the least protection of all, and that has always been the case with every President, both at Misplaced Pages and in real life. We follow policy closely, but boldly. We don't keep negative information out of his article because someone ] or vague wikilawyering, and most of the objections and !votes fall in the category and must be discounted by the closer.
			:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 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. --] (]) (]) 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>==
	If a subject is worth a whole section (and in this case at least two articles!), it deserves mention in the lead. -- ] (]) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
			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)
	:: Give me a break, you can continue to bombast these obviously libelous accusations to such a degree where it sounds like it came from the lips of Walter Cronkite himself, but they are still at the end of the day unproven allegations with no merit in the court of law and therefor no merit to be included in this article. I have no idea why you'd think including these into the lede is such a grand idea; legitimately I do not. You're pushing for this, and even the mental illness malarkey, solely on RS alone without any evidence of wrongdoing provided by the justice system. Last I checked people were innocent before proven guilty but not on Misplaced Pages it seems, not when Donald Trump is concerned no no no. You are right about one thing, the President gets the least protection of all. THIS Presidents gets the LEAST protection; everyone else we suddenly become sane enough to not include equally as false accusations about Kenya or Bush doing 9/11. ] (]) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::: Wow! ], your ] is showing. Actually we DO base content "solely on RS alone", and often "without any evidence". That is our job. You don't seem to understand our policies very well. The following replies by ] and ] are pretty good. I suggest you learn from them. -- ] (]) 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, though. If ] widely report something, we should give it ] in our encyclopedia article. ] ] 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Per ], "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to public figures. We go by Misplaced Pages content policy, whether it pleases you or not. If you wish to propose a change to policy, this is the wrong place to do it. ―] ] 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

	~~'''No'''~~ - ~~Innocent~~ ~~until~~ ~~proven~~ ~~guilty~~ as ] ~~has~~ ~~said.~~ It is ~~pure~~ ~~conjecture~~ ~~and~~ ~~gossip.~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~sure~~ ~~many~~ ] ~~would~~ ~~like~~ to ~~see~~ ~~that~~ ~~installed into~~ the ~~President~~ ~~Trump~~ ~~Misplaced Pages~~ ~~article~~ ~~solely~~ to ~~discredit~~ ~~him,~~ no ~~doubt~~ it ~~will~~ ~~happen~~ ~~sooner~~ or ~~later.~~ ] (]) 06:02, 9 January ~~2018~~ (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)
	:You seem unaware that policy-free !votes are ignored by the closer and therefore have no effect on the outcome. Please cite specific parts of Misplaced Pages policy to support your !vote. As stated above multiple times, policy specifically precludes "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning for public figures. Further, related content is already {{tq\|installed into the President Trump Misplaced Pages article}}, in ], and there is no proposal to remove it, so you also seem to have missed the whole point of this RfC. ―] ] 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::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> ==
	{{u\|Mandruss}} Feel the same way. The lead doesn't really create an accurate picture of him or his image. The campaign section too doesn't really capture the controversial nature of his campaign. ] (]) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{not a ballot}}
	Still undecided on it, but people seem to be hyperbolic in regards to this. ] (]) 05:07, 10 January 2018 (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)
			*'''Support''' His sentencing today has met ] requirement that {{tq\|a conviction has been secured for that crime}}, support adding {{tq\|and criminal}} in the lede sentence per consistency with other ] articles.] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As in: "'''Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg''' (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name '''Marky Mark''', is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
			*:—] 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Or: "'''Marshall Bruce Mathers III''' (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as '''Eminem''' (stylized as '''EMINƎM'''), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—] 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? ] (]) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in ]. He wasn't running for president at the time ]. ]] 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{Ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. ]] 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{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)
			::That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. ] (]) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —] 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a ] as you are creating here.
			::How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
			::But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other ] aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
			::Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is ] on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding ]. ] (]) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —] 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that ]? ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
			::::::The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
			::::::I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
			::::::I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. ] (]) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: {{tq\|This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. }} What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: {{tq\|Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.?}} —] 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. ] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:BLPCRIME says nothing about ''placement'' of content. It allows ''inclusion'' of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―] ] 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'''Support.''' Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies ]. ] (]) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. ] (]) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and ] arguments make it undue. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Not first-sentence material.—] 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Per the last time. ] (]) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:. —] 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. ] (]) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::*The says:
			:::{{tqb\|"Some use the spelling lede. At AP, we side with the Poynter Institute’s Roy Peter Clark in viewing lede as jargon-like spelling while lead reminds us to lead readers into the story."}} So it's correct to spell it either way. -] (])
			:The article is not about him it`s about trump ] (]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Oh right, thanks, I forgot —] 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. – ] (]) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. ] (]) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – ] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. ] (]) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::] was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that {{tq\|As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material.}} lacks policy basis. ―] ] 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. ] (]) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —] 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:How about the second? ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―] ] 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. ] (]) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? ] (]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Passes ] as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: ―] ] 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. ] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I guess it depends on the relevance of ] .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? ] (]) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said {{tq\|it's irrelevant}}. ―] ] 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' placing it in the first sentence (in the ). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -] (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) ] (]) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across 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)
			*'''Oppose''' The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: ]. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. ] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{Ping\|Anonymous8206}} Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote ] (]) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''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)
			*:See ] and ]. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―] ] 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be ], as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a ] a spade given the stakes and clear violation of ] in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
			*::This also happens to be that great rare example of ]. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
			*::Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating ] facts in a way that our rules surrounding ] demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for ]ing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is ] and what is not.
			*::Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are ''anything but'' biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to ]. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―] ] 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an ], but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, . And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
			*::::At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
			*::::As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq\|Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me}} See ]. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. {{tq\|not spotless when it comes to your own behavior}} Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from {{frac\|9\|1\|2}} years ago. Great detective work. {{tq\|I plan to move on}} Good call. {{tq\|I'm done here. Are you?}} I'm done if you are. ―] ] 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::
			*:::The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
			*:::And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. ] (]) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is ] by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding ] and ] are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography ''as a first for Presidents'', then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. ] (]) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::@] Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) ''you did mention'' to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
			*::::::And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
			*::::::I'm neutral on this row.
			*::::::But it does appear you are not IMO. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
			*:::::::The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::@] How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
			*::::::::And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by 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. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::{{tq\|If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned.}} That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―] ] 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.
			*:::::::::I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). ''This'' is what's a violation of good faith.
			*:::::::::As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with ] language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. ] (]) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. ―] ] 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			* Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Consensus #21 (Mental Health)==
	I don't think this consensus reflects the discussion it links, and erects to high a barrier around posting. Should Trump experience an ongoing degradation of his mental facilities, we would not see public confirmation from a doctor with access. On the contrary; ] would be used to find a favorable opinion whilst any confirmation would be stifled by doctor-patient confidentiality (see ]). I am not suggesting that we post now, but when documented actions by the president raise concerns of degradation in neutral reliable sources, we would be obligated to post. Note that I googled for this and currently found only left-slanted, speculative or report-on-a-report sources as yet. ] (]) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:The only chance that could be included is if the doctor that examined him in person made statements explicitly to that effect. Even then I think it would be a rather tough sell. ] (]) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:Wait until we have something real to discuss. Consensuses are easy enough to change when the need is clear, and we wouldn't be "obligated to post" "today". ―] ] 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	:: Definitely wait. -- ] (]) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	::: We are almost certainly not going to get anything reliably sourced that we can say about his mental health. What we can do is report his words and his actions, and let people draw their own conclusions. --] (]) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::What does "Consensus #21 (Mental Health)" mean? Is there a discussion somewhere numbered #21 or something? ] (]) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::: ] (]) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::@Objective3000: Ah, thanks.
			*: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)
	::::::Many Americans (and I assume non-Americans) are concerned about Trump's mental health; it's been covered countless times by dozens/hundreds of ] over an extended period of time. It's a legitimate sub-topic worthy of inclusion in this article. ] (]) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
			*::@] That's a bad example.
	::::::::Most Republicans sincerely think most Democrats are out of their fucking minds, and vice versa. Perhaps that reality might be factoring into the present conversation.] (]) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
			*::It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.
	:::::::This is a really hairy subject. I am glad this is under discussion in the press and even Congress. But IMO, armchair analyses of living persons don’t belong in an encyclopedia. In any case, you won’t gain consensus. ] (]) 01:46, 7 January 2018 (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 ].
	:I read this section yesterday and mentally put myself down as a definite '''No''' for changing the current consensus. Then I read this morning and started to question that. I'm currently leaning toward the opinion that it is possible to talk about the mental fitness debate without engaging in "armchair diagnosis" rightly eschewed by Consensus #21. I think it may be possible to craft a neutral sentence or two in the article's body acknowledging that the debate exists, perhaps including a summary of the White House's rebuttals if appropriate. Part of what pushed me to this position was the existence of the last two paragraphs of ] that contain a summary of the events leading to the ] (an article that incidentally talks as much about Donald Trump as Barry Goldwater). Anyway my gut tells me (and sources seem to agree) that there is something "unprecedented" going on today that is as big or bigger than the Goldwater thing. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:13, 7 January 2018 (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)
	::On the other hand, the Goldwater thing was 53 years ago, he wasn't a sitting president, and he had been dead for 8 years when that content was first added. This is "unprecedented" in more ways than one. ―] ] 18:41, 7 January 2018 (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.
	::: I agree with ]. There is abundant RS and professional coverage of the subject to deserve short mention, even a short section (well, actually a separate article, there really is that much). -- ] (]) 19:29, 7 January 2018 (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.
	::::@Mandruss, I agree that BLP is more of a concern here than with Goldwater, and we certainly should not give it the kind of treatment the Goldwater article currently does (quoting at length specific claims, etc.). The first sentence of the NYTimes article linked above covers most of what I think should be said at this point: <blockquote>"President Trump, whose sometimes erratic behavior in office has generated an unprecedented debate about his mental health, declared on Saturday that he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points."</blockquote><p><small>(Note this isn't a proposal for an actual wording.)</small><p>@BullRangifer, I think a short section would be overkill. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:56, 7 January 2018 (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.
	:::::This BLP has a Section ]. It doesn’t include his sniffling during the presidential debates, and concomitant speculation that he has a drug habit. We can include mental health stuff in this section when the White House issues an actual medical report saying whether there’s a mental health issue. Until something like that happens, it’s premature in this article, IMHO. Trump is not a doctor.] (]) 21:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::~~:::Well,~~ I ~~have~~ ~~always~~ ~~argued~~ ~~against~~ ~~inclusion~~ of ~~anything~~ ~~related~~ to ~~armchair~~ ~~analyses.~~ ~~But,~~ I ~~think~~ ~~there~~ is a ~~point~~ ~~where~~ ~~some~~ ~~commentary~~ ~~might~~ be ~~warranted;~~ ~~and~~ ~~that~~ ~~point~~ is ~~well~~ ~~short~~ of a ~~medical~~ ~~report~~ ~~from~~ ~~the~~ WH. ] (]) 22:00, 7 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*:::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)
	:::~~::::Where~~ ~~else~~ ~~would~~ a ~~medical~~ ~~report~~ ~~about~~ this ~~come~~ ~~from~~?] (]) 22:05, 7 January ~~2018~~ (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)
	{{od\|7}} From a doctor. We need to keep in mind whether the Goldwater rule is about ethics or reliability if something that violates is considered for inclusion. ] (]) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:Where would a doctor’s medical report about this come from, other than from the White House? If you mean from a doctor who’s never spoken with him and never tested him, I can only say that Trump would have to be extremely bonkers (and his White House doctors extremely negligent) for such a report to have any chance of being credible.] (]) 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::You don’t need a medical report to mention concerns if those concerns are heavily documented in RS and originate from both sides of the aisle. As Awilley says, any addition would have to be neutral. I fear we wouldn’t see a medical report from the WH if he were swinging from the branches of the Jackson Magnolia. ] (]) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (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)
	:There is no consensus regarding inclusion of material about Trump's psychology and personality, neither for or against. I can't really see ''any'' policy-based reasons ''not'' to include such material, as the reliable sources covering this material exist in enormous quantity and are of high quality in many, many cases, and as the issue is clearly of great importance (from current affairs, historical and encyclopedic perspectives) as it ''directly'' impacts how the United States is governed. We have entire articles devoted to the mental health of other politicians, and the US government has itself commissioned reports on the mental health of other contemporary politicians such as Putin, which have been reported on in US media.
			:Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. ] (]) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:''Oppose'' It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. ] (]) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			#
			Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "] was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The claim that those experts commenting on his mental health "must" have examined him ''personally'' is nonsensical and wrong, and fundamentally misunderstands Misplaced Pages's nature. A recommendation (from a private association) to examine someone personally may be relevant to an ''individual'' health care professional ''within a specific country'' and ''within a specific profession in that country'' and in the ''context of providing healthcare''. Misplaced Pages however is based on the coverage in reliable sources, and such a recommendation has no bearing on whether we can include reliably sourced (and relevant/WP:DUE etc.) material about Trump's psychology here. Many very solid observations can and have been made by reputable experts based on publicly available material relating to Trump, just as entire books have been written about other politicians' psychology/personality/health by experts who never met them personally.
			*:{{Ping\|Zaathras}} your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. ] (]) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. ] (]) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to , I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Misplaced Pages more than I hate Trump. ―] ] 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strongly oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''' As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on 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)
	:The issue of Trump's psychology/personality is much greater than the opinions of one private association in one country about what they believe members of their association should or shouldn't do. It's not like it's illegal, not even within the US, to comment on this issue either – it's discussed in US media on a ''daily'' basis. We also don't really need to cite any members of the psychiatric association in question, because there are plenty of competent experts in other professions (e.g. psychology) and based in other countries who have commented on the same issue, and for whom any Goldwater rule (which isn't really a "rule" but one association's opinion of dubious relevance to this case) in the US is utterly irrelevant. The conclusion must be that we should include such material in the article. --] (]) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (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)
	:*What would be included, if that happens, is speculation (given the absence of an investigation whose results are made public) and while we usually wouldn't include speculation, in this case we're dealing with speculation reported on extensively by reliable sources--and the speculation that I know of isn't by some jackass off the street, but by someone with a medical degree who reported on her thoughts in an important forum. So no, this is not something that we can only talk about if some licensed therapists has a session with the president: it is not the White House that controls the narrative, but reliable sources and editorial consensus. PS Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. ] (]) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
			*::They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see ], ], ]. ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages include nothing about Trump’s alleged mental derangement. However, it should go where stuff like this typically goes, and that’s ]. I see nothing about Trump there now, and I’d like to see it developed there before we consider summarizing it here (actually, I guess a proper summary of nothing is nothing).] (]) 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::~~:],~~ ~~I’ve~~ ~~started~~ a ~~discussion at~~ ].] (]) 23:40, 7 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*:::For relevant political examples see ] and ] ] (]) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	~~::::~~:I ~~don’t~~ ~~think~~ ~~that’s~~ ~~the~~ ~~proper~~ ~~venue~~ as it ~~presupposes~~ ~~that~~ ~~the~~ ~~25th~~ is a ~~remedy~~ or ~~that~~ ~~any remedy~~ is ~~required~~. ] (]) 23:52, 7 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*:I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. ] (]) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Yesterday’s NYT Article was not idle chit-chat; it mentioned the 25th Amendment multiple times. If Trump is swinging around in the Jackson Magnolia unbeknownst to the ] and the ], that doesn’t stop Congress from invoking the 25th.] (]) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (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.
	:::::::OK--but the possible applicability of the 25th doesn't preclude the matter from being discussed and possible included here, of course (I know I'm not telling you anything new). BTW I have very limited interest in the subject matter, but happened to see Tataral's edit go by (they have a cool username, which reminds me of a weird band I like)--still I appreciate the ping. Gotta go--AFV just started! ] (]) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::Observe ] carefully for mental stability issues!] (]) 00:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

			:That's how wikipedia works.
	I have been consistently opposed to including anything about mental health in this article because it would be basically speculation. However, I think a very general sentence similar to the NYT one that Awilley quoted above might be OK in the "health" section. BTW the "Goldwater rule" is intended as an ethical guideline for doctors, not for the general public. It may limit what doctors can say; it does not limit what we can say. --] (]) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (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.
	*.] (]) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	**Good link. Can Misplaced Pages wait?] (]) 00:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Yeah I think we can wait a bit.] (]) 01:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::: Yes, we can wait, but not much longer. We have long since passed ] on this subject. There's enough very RS stuff to make a nice little article. Suppression is an NPOV violation that can only exist so long without damaging the project. Therefore, short mention here is needed, so start thinking in that direction. -- ] (]) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Do you feel like suppression is stopping you from including it now at ]?] (]) 01:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't think that article is an appropriate place for speculation about his mental health. It could be used to describe attempts (if genuine and coming from people who are actually in a position to do it) to invoke the amendment. --] (]) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::: I agree that it should only be mentioned there as it relates to the subject of the 25th. In that regard, there are plenty of RS which do discuss it in that context, so it should be possible to include something there, at least a section, since incapacity (mental health issues qualify) is a significant condition for invoking the 25th.
	:::::::: BTW, "speculation" is an irrelevant concept at Misplaced Pages, including BLPs, if it's well-sourced. I really do get tired of that argument, because it's not based on policy. We are literally '''required''' to document everything (with a small caveat). Speculation, rumor, conspiracy, and nonsense are all unfortunate parts of the sum total of human knowledge. If it gets covered in RS, it's ''potential'' fair game. It's no guarantee, but that gets it on the target for possible inclusion. -- ] (]) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	Let's hope we don't see a repeat of his other medical report(s). Of course Trump wouldn't allow any report that's negative, and the doctor wouldn't dare cross him. -- ] (]) 00:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::What if the doctor’s not just unethical, but also deranged???] (]) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Which is exactly why we should not report diagnoses from armchair doctors; but instead talk to concerns voiced widely in RS. When and if the time is right. ] (]) 01:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::The concerns voiced widely at the moment are by armchair doctors. ] (]) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::You have a good point. But, many of the concerns are voiced by those with expertise in history, politics, and government, and about the dangers presented. Should they be ignored? ] (]) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::If they have no hands of experience examining the subject, yes they should be ignored. Otherwise it is just vague, mostly partisan, opining and guessing. I am not sure of a neutral and BLP compliant way to add such speculation. ] (]) 02:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::Again, I am adamantly opposed to medical diagnoses from armchair doctors. I am only talking about brief mention of concerns that appear in growing numbers of RS originating from both sides of the aisle. This can be stated neutrally. ] (]) 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::I would be happy to try and work out a sentence here for the health section, I still have my previous concerns though. ] (]) 02:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::: I can't believe those of you editors in favor of this proposal who chastised me for violations of BLP policy would ever consider commenting on Trump's mental health. You are going to need a determination from a medical examining board, who has access to his medical records, to make any such comments.] (]) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Ph, this is the same misunderstanding of WP policy that's gotten you a lot of criticism on other topics here. As editors, we don't adjudicate such issues like a jury that hears expert witnesses. We reflect the narratives of Reliable Source references. There's now widespread mainstream discussion of POTUS' cognitive and emotional well-being. ]] 02:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Medical facts, not opinions, for mental health comments. Don't confuse mental health with personality traits.] (]) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts. -- ] (]) 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: "We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts." You're legitimately mad if you actually believe this, according to you a completely inaccurate and false story from an outlet like CNN outweighs a factual report by medical professionals and actual courts of law. ] (]) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: No, we would likely document them all. See . -- ] (]) 05:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
	*This discussion is based on farcical premises. First, the word "speculation" appears 11 times above. Second, we are told that this matter is so ''important'' ] that factual confirmation is not necessary, so long as it is being mentioned by ''non-experts'' in "reliable sources".

	:Further, these claims are nonspecific, non-medical, hypothetical crystal balling coming from Trump's opponents, whether of the left or the nevertrumper sort.

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

			Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be ], such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

			*'''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)
	::In an action for defamation '']'', the law recognizes that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all states recognize defamation ''per se'', there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a ''per se'' action:
			*:] served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. ] (]) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Strong support''' On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	#accusing someone of a crime;
			*: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)
	#alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
			:::I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. ] (]) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	#adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
			::Lol ] (]) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	#imputing serious sexual misconduct.
			*'''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)
	:Obviously there is no more need or justification for repeating this stuff in an encyclopedia article just because rumor and wishful thinking on the topic is widespread. If and when a verifiable fact occurs like a legal action or a medical emergency, we can report that. Until then, we have no business reporting rumors simply because they are repeated in media echo chambers. ] (]) 05:22, 8 January 2018 (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.
	:: You've been here since 2010 <s>and you're making ]?</s> You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. We cite RS. Under US laws, even if what we wrote were libelous, and citing a source making a libelous claim does not make ''us'' guilty of libel, we are protected by '']'', which protects those who repeat claims found on the internet, even if they are libelous, but it never gets that far here.
	:: Instead we're dealing with opinions and statements covered by the First Amendment in RS, and we can freely cite them without any risk of breaking any law. Even if Trump were to try and sue Misplaced Pages, or editors personally, his ] suits are nothing to be feared. If we followed your opinions above, editing here would ground to a halt on many articles.
	:: Likewise in society at large. The numerous articles and commentary on this subject are made by often well-known top professionals in medicine, psychiatry, journalism, politics, etc. None of them are trying to protect themselves from defamation lawsuits when they make these statements, because they are not breaking the law. The First Amendment covers them, and, because Trump is a public person, it would be nearly impossible for him to win a defamation case.
	:: Study that subject. Public persons, and especially a sitting president, are totally powerless in the face of defamation. Those who are wise and truly great totally ignore such things. Trump, OTOH, is thin-skinned and takes slights personally. Not wise.
	:: <s>Now drop the LEGAL THREATS and</s> stop trying to intimidate editors. It creates a chilling atmosphere. -- ] (]) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Oh c'mon. There's no legal threat here. He's just saying it could be defamatory or something like that. ] (]) 05:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::You've been here since 2005 and you still haven't read the part of ] where it says {{tq\|A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Misplaced Pages's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified}}? You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. ] (]) 05:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::I was actually thinking about mentioning the same thing about defamation, because making unfounded non-medical assessments that someone is diseased is treated severely by the law. It’s not a legal threat, just a fact about how the law treats such gossip. And ] similarly states, “Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.“ The only part of this story that qualifies so far is the bit about the 25th Amendment, and even that’s premature.] (]) 05:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::: I understand it, but the only reason for bringing it up served to intimidate editors. It was uncalled for. There has been no danger of violating policy. We're talking about allegations, claims, opinions, etc. found in RS, not uncited opinions. This is all covered by the First Amendment and policy here. When creating BLP content we are very careful how we do it. Why bring up defamation? -- ] (]) 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Because defamation is an exception to the First Amendment, and it’s one thing for the press to print gossip but quite another for people who are not journalists to repeat it. Moreover, it’s important to understand the seriousness of saying without proof that a person is diseased or may be diseased.] (]) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::: Yes, it's a serious matter, but as explained above, we are covered by ''BvR'', 1st Amendment, and by how we treat BLP-related content. We cite it. We don't state it in Misplaced Pages's voice. We also attribute it. If the subject were to sue, they would have to sue the person who wrote the original article. We cannot be held liable. A public person would likely not sue because it's nearly impossible to win a defamation case in the USA. In England it's a different matter.
	::::::: All this is assuming it's defamatory material, but it's not, and the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not? -- ] (]) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::We don’t print everything that the NYT thinks is fit to print, not even 1%. We ought to wait until a doctor who examines the BLP subject has something to say about it, and that will be very soon according to VM’s link above ] (]) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::{{tq\|...the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not?}} You might as well say we should be able to use any image we see on a website, particularly if it's seen on multiple sites. If the copyright holder isn't suing any of those sites, why would they sue us? Why should we apply a much higher standard than the rest of the world? For better or worse, Misplaced Pages doesn't use reasoning like that. ―] ] 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

			: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.}}
	I mentioned this in passing somewhere else on this page but maybe it might be worth repeating. A few people who get so much media attention that at times you could write full-length books on several individual months of their lives, like Trump, tend to create situations here where during the height of the popular discussion articles about them and related topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether. Alternatively, over at wikinews, if for instance some editors collaborated over there for a daily POTUS or White House or Washington article or section, those articles would remain intact and that material more readily available into the long term despite any future cutbacks here. Just an idea, anyway. ] (]) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC) ] (]) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (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".
	:Sounds like a good idea, but the question is who's up for it. ] (]) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure what to take from ], as there was "no clear consensus", but it's recent and relevant to your comments. Less than six weeks ago ] concluded that "there seems to be a near-unanimous consensus that Wikinews is effectively dead and sending our readers to such a project will be a dis-service." ―] ] 23:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	::That is the point. Wikinews is dead and not overcrowded. Editors here could easily help out there, especially with such a delicate topic, instead of having their work torn to bits here. ] (]) 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::You hope to resurrect Wikinews? ―] ] 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	"...topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether."

			: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.
	That's a huge violation of ]. That should not happen. We fill an article until it bursts, and then we ] content into sub-articles. We're here to build, not break down. That means we try to make Misplaced Pages bigger. It's bytes, not paper. We have an assignment from Jimbo: Document the "sum total of human knowledge". Go for it. -- ] (]) 06:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:"Sum total of human knowledge" is a bit vague, don't you think? I'm not aware that Jimbo has ever said precisely what he meant by that, and he would be the last to say he's the ultimate authority around here anyway. It was an opinion from an above-average Misplaced Pages editor.<br />Taking the phrase literally{{emdash}}"anything any human has ever known, no matter how minute or mundane"{{emdash}}there is not enough server storage on the planet. Assuming you don't take it so literally, where to draw the line is a matter of wide disagreement. So the phrase was a rhetorical device that isn't particularly useful in discussions like this. To assert that something is yellow is pointless if there is wide disagreement on the definition of yellow.<br />Per ], etc, PRESERVE is not meant to protect anything that some editors think should be in articles, even if it otherwise passes the letter of content policy. If consensus is to break down, we properly break down. ―] ] 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:: I obviously don't take it that far ("no matter how minute or mundane"). It must receive RS coverage enough for inclusion (notability is not a factor for inclusion). Yes, we do often need to tweak and break down content, but we should seek to improve and save, and move into sub-articles if necessary. Outright deletion of the hard, good faith, efforts of editors creates ill will and loss of motivation. We lose good editors that way. They have followed all policies and guidelines, their work has been accepted, and then it gets trashed by someone who often wasn't even involved in the creation process at the article. That is so wrong. All content that is properly sourced should be treated with care. I have sometimes saved content by moving it to a more appropriate article. That's a good option if an article develops in another direction and the content no longer is a good fit. Treat proper content with care, and respect the hard work of other editors. -- ] (]) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Content in wikipedia must also be encyclopedic. A lot of material regarding current events and particularly current controversies, particularly the day to day stuff, is sometimes at best dubiously encyclopedic. Certainly the sometimes intense battles for mention in the lede are at best dubiously useful in both the long term and the short term. And, again, I refer to the previously mentioned ] article which seems to have been trimmed of a great deal of material before the final eventual merge back into Tom Cruise. In the heat of the moment, particularly for topics that stimulate strong emotional responses from all sides, it can be really hard to tell what material will really finally wind up being really encyclopedic. A lot of the current events material really, ultimately, often winds up being thought to not be encyclopedic. And all that doesn't even take into account whether the sometimes random or emotionally inspired spinout articles that are created as opposed to others ultimately lead to remotely balanced and neutral coverage. Particularly for topics which are still current, like living people, where the very strong likelihood of additional, possibly more important, information being generated later may have to be addressed in a way which is ultimately reduce the amount of space to other topics. This is an encyclopedia and the primary purpose is to summarize material, not to reproduce it in toto. That sort of thing is more appropriate for books, which presumably would include effective books, like collections of news articles.
	::::Ultimately, I cannot see us ultimately keeping content here in the quantity that would equate the theoretically possible monthly books on Trump I mentioned earlier might contain. And on some topics, like this one, there does seem to me to be a bit of a presupposition that an RfC today will necessarily be binding after still further developments. That never happens. The best way to preserve the non-summarized detailed information on any widely covered topic is to preserve it in a place where such information is expected to be preserved, like newspaper archives, rather than in the history of a wikipedia page which in the future may well become like TomKat an invisible redirect which many people won't even know was a separate article in the first place. ] (]) 19:01, 8 January 2018 (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.
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2018 ==

			:-->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.
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	Change the opening paragraphs of this article to stipulate that Donald Trump won the American Presidential race in 2016, "securing 304 votes in the electoral college, but losing the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes"
	This is reasonable and accurate, providing context for the below information, whilst also streamlining information for visitors to Misplaced Pages, who may be visiting this page for this information. ] (]) 01:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	*] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx\|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp -->
	:This article is Trump’s bio. Stats like this would better fit in an article about his presidency or election. (You can find links to these articles in the infobox at the upper-right of the article.) However, the text in the leads of all of the articles has been painfully agreed upon and any chance that you could change consensus to your text is highly unlikely. ] (]) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the suggestion. We had endless discussions about this for months after the election and his inauguration - whether to include the numbers in the lede, whether to point out in the lede that he failed to win the popular vote. The eventual conclusion was to simply say in the lede that he won, and leave all those details for the article itself. That may not have been a perfect conclusion, but at least it did stop the arguing - which would certainly start up again, very vigorously, if we were to do if you suggest. --] (]) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

			:-->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.
	== "third-generation businessman" ==

			: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.
	So with by {{u\|Vjmlhds}}, IMO fluff has been inserted, miss universe thing isn't important enough in the lead. More opinions? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
	:I also liked the former version better... I don't think naming Art of the Deal and Miss Universe are needed, and the split makes it so there are now 7 paragraph in the Lead. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

			:For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per ] otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the ] violation. ] (]) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2018 ==
			::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. – ] (]) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''', this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly ]. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. ] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{Ping\|Kowal2701}} I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). ] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. ] (]) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. ] (]) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article ]. Regards, ] (]) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been , correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―] ] 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{Ping\|Mandruss}} why "animal"? ] (]) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::, noun sense 5. ―] ] 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. ] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is ]. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, ] (]) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that ]'s racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. ] (]) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per ], there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―] ] 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Separate - no. It came up during about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also and two brief ones ( and ) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles {{Oldsmiley\|roll}}.) ]] 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in ]. ] (]) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why ] exists. ] (]) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{Ping\|Big Thumpus}} I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. ] (]) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―] ] 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{Ping\|Mandruss}} "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―] ] 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. ] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:How about the court? ] (]) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{emoji\|1F44D}} ]] 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::: {{sert\|1}} ]] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. ] (]) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			A convicted felon is by definition a criminal ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
			:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.{{pb}}All of which is eminently ] and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the arguments. ―] ] 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Donald Trump attended both Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, to which he transferred. This is not outlined in his infobox whereas, on ]'s page, it's clear which universities he had attended. This is also the case for, say, ]'s page. It is not explicitly outlined that he transferred, however, it is clear that he attended multiple universities. I believe Trump's alma mater should be inclusive of all of the places he had studied in.
			::I totally, completely agree with ]. ] (]) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::+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. ―] ] 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. – ] (]) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? ] (]) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. – ] (]) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::See ]. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: (''Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms''), (''A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent''). ]] 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? ] (]) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{Ping\|Cortador}} I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. ] (]) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. ] (]) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strongly oppose''' He's not known for being a criminal ''qua'' criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. ] ] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{+1}}. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Statistics''': Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ] (]) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―] ] 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			] The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons ] (]) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	e.g. the infobox should be either:<br>Fordham University (transferred out)<br>University of Pennsylvania (B.S.)
			:We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―] ] 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	or

			The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics ] (]) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Fordham University<br>
			:Seventh time. ] (]) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	University of Pennsylvania (B. S.)

			== "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election." ==
	as two examples.

			{{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.'''}}
	] (]) 12:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Consensus was for the current version; consensus is needed before requesting an edit ] (]) 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

			: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)
	by {{u\|Vjmlhds}} restores about the recent developments in North Korea. Aside from the fact {{u\|Vjmlhds}} has clearly violated active discretionary sanctions by restoring material instead of discussing the matter on this talk page, I do not believe the quoted source draws a direct line between Trump's North Korea rhetoric and that country's involvement in the Olympics. At the ''most'', it is saying South Korean president is crediting the existence of talks to Trump's rhetoric (which does not make it a fact). The text makes it seem as if Trump was directly responsible for North Korea being in the Olympics, which is a ludicrous assertion. My view is that we can say ] praised Trump and credited his rhetoric with facilitating talks, and that's really it. The presents an entirely different spin on the matter, suggesting Moon was tactically sucking up to Trump. -- ] (]) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
	:The source has:
	:{{tq\|South Korea's President Moon Jae-in says his US counterpart, Donald Trump, "deserves big credit" for talks between South and North Korea.{{pb}}The talks, held on Tuesday, were the first in two years and led to the announcement that North Korea would send a delegation to the Olympics in Pyeongchang later this year.}}

			== Convicted felon ==
	:The restored (somewhat modified) version is:
	:{{tq\|In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea.{{pb}}The talks resulted in an easing of tensions between the two Koreas, and the North participating in the Pyeongchang, South Korea hosted 2018 Winter Olympics.}}
	:<small>putting sentences in different lines like the BBC to show the similarities</small>
	:So while I'm not sure it's important enough to be included, it is pretty much a paraphrasing of the cited source and does not say that Trump caused North korea to go to the olympics. ] (]) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
	:{{small\|Reverted per ArbCom restrictions. The difference between the two edits is one of copy editing, not substance. {{u\|Vjmlhds}} is invited to join the discussion that s/he should have started. ―] ] 14:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)}}
	::{{reply\|Galobtter}} The proposed language still ''implies'' Trump is the reason North Korea is going to the Olympics. The BBC article makes this same implication, but by looking at other sources (such as the NYT source) it is clear that it is not what a preponderance of reliable sources say. We CAN say that it is Moon's opinion that Trump's rhetoric helped to bring about talks (though that is highly dubious, since most sources say it was a strategy by North Korea to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States). What happened after that is NOT directly linked to Trump, and not RELEVANT to Trump, so it should not be in the article. -- ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

			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)
	== De-capitalize "President" in the first sentence ==
	{{atop\|1=Withdrawn with an explanation at the bottom. ―] ] 19:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)}}
	Current:

			: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)
	{{talkquote\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is the ] and current ], in office since January 20, 2017.}}
			::{{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)
			:::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 agree should be in introduction after they mention business man ] (]) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	Proposed:
			:Agreed. ] (]) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			Agreed, it should be the in the first sentence of the intro.
	{{talkquote\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is the ] and current ], in office since January 20, 2017.}}
			:See RFC above. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	] recently underwent a clarifying revision backed by an RfC. AFAICT, the guideline has been basically stable since October of last year. The revision affects capitalization of the various forms and usages of "president". Except for the first sentence, ''I have already brought this article into compliance with the revised guideline without objection.'' Since the first sentence is covered by ] #17 (established before the guideline revision), I am seeking an amendment to that consensus to de-capitalize "President" in the first sentence.
			::It needs to be in the first sentence of the article ] (]) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			== 2nd Term time ==
	The applicable part of the guideline is part of its bullet 3, {{tq\|...is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)}}. In this case, "President of the United States" is preceded by not one but three modifiers: "the", "45th", and "current". Our construction is not substantially different from one of the examples given there, {{tq\|Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.}}

			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)
	I'm aware that most or all other presidents' BLPs capitalize this form. Compliance with the revised guideline would also require changing the bodies (and some titles) of many other articles related to U.S. presidents. I would happily change everything fell-swoop in maybe one week of feverish editing, but that approach seems to attract accusations of disruption even when clearly supported by consensus-backed guidelines. The alternative is to live with some inconsistency until everything can be changed at a slower pace per ]. While it largely depends on the amount of pushback from editors who disagree with the guideline, I don't think it should take longer than ~3 months to finish the job. I think this is as good a place to start as any.
			:No, per ]... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::. {{shrug}} – ] (]) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. ] (]) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::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—discussion on this page governs only this article.{{pb}}A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see ]. ―] ] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). ]] 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The {{tlx\|birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. ―] ] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== 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> ==
	*'''Support as proposer''' ―] ] 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop\|Becomes moot approx. 76 hours from now. Superseded by ] below. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 13:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*'''<s>Oppose''' "President of the United States" is the formal title of a head of state and when used in that context should always be capitalized.</s> -] (]) 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
	:*This is ~~not~~ a ~~re-litigation~~ of ~~the~~ ~~RfC~~ ~~that~~ ~~backs~~ ~~the~~ ~~guideline~~ ~~revision.~~ I ~~think~~ ] ~~applies~~. ―] ] 16:17, 11 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		{{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" ―] ] 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}

	::*'''Support''' I withdraw my oppose. After double checking the Chicago Manual of Style, I see that I was wrong in the particular usage. -] (]) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			I believe to make the introduction paragraph align with the narrative, it should be changed from:
	:::*Thanks, but for the record we have a manual of style independent from external style guides, while our consensus process takes them into account. No doubt they were considered in the RfC that backs this guideline revision, and it considered more style guides than CMOS alone. In other words, it would change nothing for our purposes if CMOS (or any other style guide) differed from JOBTITLES. We don't debate MoS at article level, and for very good reason. ―] ] 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			'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.'
	*'''Comment''' - This "problem" (if that's what it is) extends to the articles of almost ''every'' current president of countries that have presidents, not just the United States. -- ] (]) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			to:
	*'''Oppose''' - It is important to distinguish between a '''formal title''' and an '''occupational description''' (regardless of what ], which is only a style guideline, says). In the first sentence of the lede, the use of "the" indicates it is a formal title, hence "President of the United States" is appropriate. If we are to use the occupational description construct, it would be something like {{tq\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is the ] and current ], in office since January 20, 2017.}} I think the difference is clear. -- ] (]) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			'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.'
	:*Sure, if MoS and the underlying consensus process mean nothing, discussions like this one are a waste of time, and Misplaced Pages will forever be a random and arbitrary mix of compliant and non-compliant content (this article already is). Multiple people holding your view !voted in the RfC and ]. ―] ] 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			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:
	::*{{reply\|Mandruss}} - Did you mean for your response to be excessively antagonistic, or was it just one of those times where someone's tone is not clear from what they've written? -- ] (]) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			'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)
	:::*Not only did I not mean it to be, but I disagree that it was. My tone was intended to be very direct and slightly annoyed. ―] ] 18:12, 11 January 2018 (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.}} ―] ] 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I think it is reasonable. He is both the {{tq\|President of the United States}}(title) and president of the United States. If it were to be a title, it'd be {{Tq\|serving as President of the United States.}} ] (]) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			:Oppose. You are adding three things:
	*'''Support'''. This is how we treat other people's job titles. I don't think the distinction between a "formal title" and an "occupational description" is relevant either. People who have e.g. "Professor of " as their formal job title at a university generally have their titles written in lower case on Misplaced Pages. The same is true with many, many other people in different professions. They and their employers often capitalize their formal job titles, while we don't. --] (]) 16:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			:*"Trump" is unnecessary surname repetition.
	:{{ec\|2}}I find it interesting that Nixon, despite being the example, still hasn't been changed. ], opposition was predicted despite not being too much opposition there.
			:*"current" is redundant with "is".
	:In general guidelines shouldn't try to overrule established practice unless there's a really good consistency reason..I did write a long para on how I was eh on it, but I think the more I look at it the more I find it '''fine'''. ] (]) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			:*"of the United States" is redundant with "American" and "of the United States" in first sentence.
	::Here's a really good consistency reason: Misplaced Pages professes to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious encyclopedias strive to be consistent with respect to things like this. That is not changed by the fact that a majority of Misplaced Pages editors don't care about things like this. Those of us who do ask '''nothing''' of those who don't except to not stand in the way of our efforts toward consistency. Not standing in the way is really, really easy{{emdash}}so easy that one can do it while sleeping. ―] ] 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' he is a ~~president~~ of a ~~country,~~ ~~and~~ he is ~~the~~ ~~President~~ ~~of the~~ ~~United~~ ~~States~~, ~~that~~ is ~~his~~ ~~title~~ ~~and~~ it ~~should~~ be ~~capitalized,~~ ~~same~~ as it is ~~with~~ ~~every~~ ~~other former president~~. ] <~~sup~~>]~~</sup>~~ 17:06, 11 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		: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 ]. ―] ] 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)
	* '''Oppose''' When we are using the official title, especially at first use, we have invariably capitalized it. This is not just about the president. See for example ] (“…is the 84th ]”), ] (“…serving as the ] and current ]”), ] (“…is an American businesswoman, philanthropist, politician, and the ]”), ] (“…is a retired ] ] who is the 26th and current ]”)… shall I go on? --] (]) 18:40, 11 January 2018 (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. ―] ] 21:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::P.S. Someone mentioned professors. Good example. “He is a professor of physics at Yale University”: job description, not capitalized. “He is the Frederick Phineas Rose Professor of Physics at Yale University”: official title, capitalized. --] (]) 18:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			::::{{emoji\|1F44D}} ]] 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - If even MelanieN opposes this, effectively saying that MoS means nothing in the end, it seems very unlikely to pass, and it is unbearably painful for me to watch. Therefore I've withdrawn it as a waste of time.<br />Apparently, despite its name, there is considerable opinion that Misplaced Pages's MoS is not an actual ] as the rest of the world defines the phrase. I seriously doubt that editors at ''The New York Times'', for example, refuse to comply with the parts of their MoS that they disagree with, as they are ''professionals'' who put their paper's style consistency before their own opinions. Until there is a clear community consensus to the contrary, I and many others will continue to assume the usual definition of MoS and will strive for that same level of professionalism. ―] ] 19:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
			:@]
			:'''Oppose''' Nope. Too soon. ].] (]) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	{{u\|Mandruss}} Or maybe that MOS section doesn't really represent the community consensus on "best practice" and needs to change to a new consistent manner that doesn't conflict with thousands of pages. ] (]) 04:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:That MOS section is backed by a clear RfC consensus. If it needs to change, how would you suggest we go about effecting that change? RfC? Oh. ―] ] 13:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::{{reply\|Mandruss}} Just to be clear, I ''totally'' understand your frustration about this, particularly as it would seem to be a violation of ]. With that said, I've looked at the RfC and I firmly believe the result was quite wrong - possibly a function of the fact it had so few participants (a perennial problem with such things). External manuals of style disagree on the matter (Chicago sides with you, but AP does not), and I think it will always be contentious. Based on the fact most articles use the uppercase form (and we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of articles), I think it is going to be a difficult hill for you to take. Perhaps another RfC ''is'' needed, but given the enormous scope it represents I think it would need to be publicized in a big way to get more editors to respond. -- ] (]) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Scjessey}} {{tq\|I think it is going to be a difficult hill for you to take}} - I don't intend to take this approach again, but as I said I and many others will continue to do what we can in a less direct manner. That is far from the best approach for the project, but that's not a problem we created. If the collective community felt that MoS should mean nothing, it wouldn't continue to exist. ―] ] 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|Mandruss}} It looks the consensus isn't really that clear - people in the RfC were suggesting going to ] to get more people and wider consensus. ] (]) 16:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Galobtter}} It was clear enough for the guideline to be revised without objection and to remain stable for 3 months. And any one of the people you speak of could have done exactly what they were suggesting, and did not; that's how strong their feelings were. It was an RfC, so it was listed on the pages watched by editors who wish to be involved in MoS RfCs. Editors can't choose not to participate and then cry ''"Insufficient participation!!"'' when the result doesn't go their way. ―] ] 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

			'''Comment'''. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. <small>What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster.</small> ]] 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	In light of Trump's recent comments that are being , unforgivable, , ugly, etc. it occurs to me that we need to have a serious discussion about how this article covers Trump's long history of unfortunate statements, comments, tweets, and actions that have been widely-characterized as racist, racially motivated, and racially insensitive. I propose a dedicated section that would include an overall analysis, and then lay out the evolution of Trump's words/actions and their impact. It would probably best fit under the 'Political image' section. It should look at everything from 1989 forward, with emphasis on the . The trick of course will be to keep it to a reasonable length. Please share your thoughts.- ] 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			:I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --] (]) (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Previous discussions:
			::Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no ]. ―] ] 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*]
			:{{tq\|Trump with a droopy eyelid}}, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―] ] 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*]
			::]'s character ] from the film '']'' comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	: ] (]) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like ] or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―] ] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It's time already for another Trump is racist talk? Just does not seem like a good idea. ] (]) 01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			::::It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings ( or ). ]] 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The previous discussions are from August 2016. ] (]) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:TeamDrumpf , so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at ]. I'm assuming you meant {{tq\|Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster}} as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters '''are''' cute. ]] 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Duplicate edit requests/discussions===
	::This is not a "talk" about whether Trump is a racist or not; it's a proposal to organize and improve the content about what I believe is a defining aspect of the subject. It is a theme that comes up frequently in the press, and it has roots in the 1980s, perhaps earlier. If you have a valid objection about having such a discussion, I would like to hear it, but if your only contribution is to flippantly dismiss it, then that's not helpful at all.- ] 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Yeah it is kind of a "talk" about if Trump is racist or not, if you are proposing a dedicated section to all the perceived racist things he has said or done. We should at least be honest on what you are purposing if you wish to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. ] (]) 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Right, this must not be talked about. "But all our articles have a liberal bias!!!!!" (sarcasm).] (]) 01:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Ha, yeah not what I mean. But thank you! ] (]) 01:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::I couldn't agree more strongly with MrX's suggestion. Thanks for bringing up the suggestion. This is a good article from CNN for anyone that needs a reminder. ] ] (]) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you. There are obviously a lot of sources to work with, including a number that analyze it on a longer-term scale.- ] 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::PackMecEng, you don't need to clarify, amplify, or interpret what I wrote in the OP. It was perfectly clear. If you don't want to participate, fine, but please don't disrupt.- ] 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::It is a valid point, but if you disagree that is fine. ] (]) 02:40, 12 January 2018 (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?
	I think someone should just add the material. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise some editors are gonna play endless games to prevent anything from being said on the topic.] (]) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:I agree and let's not get hung up on the label "racist", which will lead to endless unproductive discussion. But his views and their evolution and persistence are one of the defining characteristics of his public life. Somebody should add the content and we can work to improve it if necessary. ]] 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:Will Rogers said: "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." I agree with MrX, (and zzz’s addition) including the suggestion that it be of reasonable length. And that’s the rub. At some point we need to talk elephants crowding the room. I don’t know when. But, at some point, "when" becomes "now". ] (]) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::Maybe a good place to start is to locate a few high quality sources that cover the subject from at a macro level. As a first draft thumbnail sketch of an outline, I propose:
	::# Within its first year, Trump's presidency often found itself fending off accusations of racial insensitivity, tacit support of white supremacists, and racism. Analysts tied this to Trump's history...
	::# Trumps history from the Central Park 5 to birtherism; from Mexico sending rapists to present.
	::# Reaction and impact.
	::- ] 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::For 2, also his housing discrimination cases .] (]) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, good point.- ] 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::CP5 is important. His initial reaction and his reaction 17 years later. His housing consent decrees long past may be too much. Anything with strong sourcing since the start of his campaign is fair game. I wouldn’t press heavily on his inept comments re Charlottesville. ] (]) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Let me expand on the Central Park thingy. He didn’t do that for votes. He didn’t do that for condo sales. He spent a pile of money to press for the death of folks with no conviction. When they were exonerated, he refused to accept it. He asked what were black teens doing in CP if not to cause trouble. As if a black teen wouldn’t go to a park if not to rape. ] (]) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::You should probably use a better source than a NPR commentary. ] (]) 02:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::It's in the public record. ] (]) 02:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::I was referring to the NPR source listed above by VM. A non-commentary source would be better. ] (]) 02:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::I'm thinking of the racist remarks re Puerto Rico. ] ] (]) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Common dreams is a nonprofit progressive site, there has to be better sources. ] (]) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Of course there are better article sources for an article. For our talk page the one I gave is excellent. ] (]) 04:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::Then you should cite those, not ones that would not be suitable for the proposed section. ] (]) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Trump pardoned racial profiler Arpaio (now planning to run for senate as "a big supporter of President Trump"). (Arpaio a 'priest' in the 'death-cult' of Trumpism .) Tweeted that majority of killings of whites are by blacks, and continually ties blacks with inner-city violence . Retweeted fake Muslim immigrant videos from UK neo-Nazis . ] (]) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Really? Arpaio as a priest in the death cult of Trump? wow ] (]) 03:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	===Proposal===
	* What about creating an article on MrX's proposal? I have a feeling there will be enough for a standalone article. It could be summarized in this article and linked to the main article. Just an idea. Also, ignore this section if there isn't any agreement on this idea. --- ] (]) 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::I like that idea, especially considering that he is only in his first year... ] (]) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. I have begun an article in one of my sandbox pages if people want to work on it. I made a couple of opening statements with references. ---] (]) 03:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::Oops! here is the link: . The proposed title is at the top of the page, and this of course can be changed per consensus. ---] (]) 03:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' A stand alone article with a brief summary and link in this article is a very good idea. -] (]) 03:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	*I agree that a new article is probably warranted. Perhaps it could be called ] or ] . Whatever summary is left here should not be so short as to misrepresent the extent to which the subject has been covered in reliable sources. Certainly it should be no shorter that the 'Manhattan developments' section in which we go into mind-numbing detail about routine real estate deals. - ] 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::Everybody feel free to make additions and changes to the article as we go along. --] (]) 04:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::I'm thinking of moving it to the main space. I will cite consensus support here. ---] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Whether Trump is or is not a racist is relatively irrelevant here. What we focus on is documenting what RS say on the issue, and there are plenty of RS which do that. There should be enough for a stand alone article which ends up getting a section here. -- ] (]) 04:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	I find it interesting that we don't even well represent his statements/actions (travel ban etc) characterized as islamophobic. You won't find "muslim ban" here either in the campaign section or in the immigration section. ] (]) 04:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:I agree. This is interesting. ---] (]) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:I moved the page to an inactive Draft space based on a recommendation. Here it is and I updated the above link. ---] (]) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	Definitely the widely covered stuff about islamophobia, birther stuff, and charlottesville etc ] (]) 07:13, 12 January 2018 (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)
	Please also make sure to inclide his close personal and business relationships with people of various ethnicities including endorsements he received and that he got a higher percentage of votes from Blacks and hispanocs than the prior Republican candidate. Yoi should also note his making MLK's birthplace the first national historic monument in Georgia. The personal views he has expressed should also be included spelling out his condemnation of hate and hate groups. ] (]) 07:55, 12 January 2018 (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 \| ] \| ] 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Well, if that's is covered in relation to his views; if not it should be included like anything else per due weight. Also if including condemnations should include how, say, was from "overwhelming pressure" and "seen as long overdue" ] (]) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::And requested: {{slink\|WP:Requests for page protection/Increase\|Talk:Donald Trump}}. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The Guardian is almost as biased as the other sources and commentaries noted here. I'm pretty sure his condemmation of hate groups and violence has been widely reported as have his action making MLK's birthplace the first National Monument in Georgia, and his elextion results. What we shouldn't be doing is making essays and stringing together sources to try and make a point. I'm sure there are sources noting his penchant for tweets and comments that have stirred controversy. Without going overboard on recentism it's worth noting his communocation style and the protests responding. ] (]) 08:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―] ] 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::]. I mean no, the "shithole" comment just by itself has been covered about 5-100 times more than that MLK thing, including internationally. ] (]) 08:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			::Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the ''least'' significant issue. The clogging of ''this page'' however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::That's correct. {{u\|FloridaArmy}}, we don't add material to articles just to balance unpleasant material. Articles should proportionately reflect the coverage in reliable sources. This is explained in ] and ].- ] 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―] ] 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Uh, you ever heard about the "some of my best friends are black" argument? ] (]) 08:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::VM, Do you have a source that he is making that argument? I do not think it would be wise to source it to you for the article. ] (]) 13:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Dawha? The source for "making that argument" is the comment posted by user FloridaArmy at 7:55 on January 12.] (]) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Ah, maybe stick to content not contributors. ] (]) 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::I am addressing a specific argument he made. So yeah, I'm sticking to content. Just because I am referring to a comment made by a contributor does not mean I'm discussing contributors. Otherwise, every single comment on here would be "discussing contributors". Which would be ridiculous. See how that works? ] (]) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::Adding to that - FloridaArmy should see - having black friends doesn't necessarily mean a change in racial attitude. But getting a little more on-topic, a sentence on his essential defense of "" could be included; but so for the lambasting of it. ] (]) 09:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025 (2) ==
	:I agree that we need a dedicated section. This is a major topic of his political worldview; it is both one of the issues he and his supporters seem to focus the most on, and also one of the topics that receives the most coverage in reliable sources. --] (]) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop
	::{{u\|Tataral}} (and others), there is a draft started ]. I suggest we bring it to 'Start' or 'C' class then move it to main space. There is a lot of material in existing articles to draw from. In about an hour, when I should be fully awake, I'm going to flesh out an outline in the form of section headings and then start filling in each section to a minimal degree.- ] 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			\| result = See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Comments now condemned as racist by UN. {{tq\|Remarks by Donald Trump describing immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole countries” were racist, the United Nations human rights office has said, as it led global condemnation of the US president.}} Revise to 1000 times more coverage than the MLK whatever. ] (]) 12:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			}}
	:It's really irrelevant what the UN says. Saying a country is a shithole country doesn't make one racist. Many of those countries are shithole countries, and it has nothing to do with race. Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue. And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	:::''"Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue."'' <-- No, this is completely ass backwards and illustrates well the POV problem that exists on so many Trump related articles. Anything that might Trump looks bad, EVEN IF he himself is responsible for it, is whitewashed out of them with ]. No, '''keeping this out would be a POV issue'''. ''"And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies."'' <-- Impeccable sourcing is not a problem since every single outlet has commented on it. And yeah, he denies it NOW (though yesterday the statement WH released didn't deny it) that shit hit the fan and he's catching crap for it even from some Republicans. But so what? His denial is completely irrelevant to the issue other than that we should note it in the article.] (]) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			The official portrait needs to be updated to reflect the new term ] (]) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::That's exactly right. Editors can't just throw up alphabet soup and expect to be taken seriously. As some point, ] has to come into play.- ] 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:{{notdone}} see above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I agree, and closers are far too lax about enforcing policy due the shitstorm that the community tolerates when they do, and that is a serious problem. I've said it a million times, mostly to deaf ears, but we should be seeing more closes go against the numbers. Without exception, when I've asked for examples of that, that's ended the conversation. And, even if that situation were improved, we would need a closer for every discussion of any importance, as there would be no other way to enforce policy. ―] ] 16:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::::Yeah I think not many closers brave enough to say go against the numbers because the arguments don't conform to policy. ] (]) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::Explain to me then how it's not a BLP issue or POV issue to include this? Right now we have conflicting statements on what was actually said and there is no real RS on what was said, only allegations or "he said she said" and to call someone or a comment racist needs impeccable sourcing. In addition, even if he did call certain countries shitholes, that doesn't make it racist at all. Was Obama called an antisemite for calling Netanyahu "chickenshit?" ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::That's not how it works. We don't have to disprove your spurious assertion. We are talking about a section on Trump's 45 year history of racial comments and actions (which include executive orders, lawsuits, statements, comments, and tweets). If yesterday didn't happen, the section would still need to be included in this article per ] because of the 1000s of reliable sources that have documented it for 45 years.- ] 17:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	::Actually, referring to Africa as a shithole country kind of makes you racist and stupid, but we're talking about what third party sources report. The UN's view is not only relevant {{emdash}}it's highly noteworthy.- ] 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			]
	:::Why is it racist? Most of those countries that was mentioned are run by dictators, corrupt and all around shitty countries. It doesn't make one racist for stating the obvious. Look at Haiti which he supposedly called shithole, it sits on the same island as the Domincan Republic yet that is really all that can be said as a comparison between the two. Sometimes countries are shitholes and it's not necessarily racist to say so. And we can't report on this regardless because it's just he said she said, until there is ample evidence this is just more gossip. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			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)
	:::::Hey Sir Joseph, thanks for proving that you really have no business editing this topic area.] (]) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Coming from you I take that as a huge compliment. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Statements can be attributed; also this is more about in general about his well-documented statements in support of birtherism (racist conspiracy theory) and other statements.. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::It should also be noted that it is not the UN as a whole making that statement but a UN official. ] (]) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Reported in RS as the UN; IIRC it's a spokesperson.. ] (]) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Yup, UN human rights spokesman - and last I checked spokesmen speak for their organizations.. ] (]) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Yup I found the article you were referring to, he speaks for the human rights commission. Not the UN as a whole. Thanks! ] (]) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::"It's really irrelevant what the UN says" – no, it's not. --] (]) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 ==
	. Frankly, it's freakin' ridiculous that information on Trump's views regarding race have been kept out of this (and might I add, several other) articles for all this time, since it's like THE major issue surrounding his presidency.] (]) 15:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop}}
	:I agree. Anyone feel free to jump in and help with ]. Then we can distill out a ~6-8 paragraph summary to put in this article.- ] 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	::Since the page has been created, it should be linked to ]. However, the "political positions" of the subject should not be a subsection of his election campaign (as currently on this page). This should be an upper level section. But one can reasonably argue that the page is about his personal views, rather than about a "political position" (as a President). Than it can be also mentioned and linked from this page. ] (]) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hard-trump-vance-release-official-portraits/story?id=117760860
	:::Before we link it to his main BLP we should let it settle down for a bit. To much changing right now and it is no where near good enough condition. It really should not of been moved out of draft space yet either. ] (]) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	~~::::Sorry,~~ ~~but~~ ~~that's~~ ~~not~~ ~~policy-based~~ ~~reasoning~~. ~~The~~ ~~article~~ is a C ~~class~~ ~~article with excellent sourcing~~. It can be ~~linked~~ ~~now~~.- ] 17:34, 12 January ~~2018~~ (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)
			:{{declined}} - as per original request above. ] (]) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::At the point I the link to the new article, it was still in . While things have improved greatly since then, the article still has multiple issues. There's no hurry, so I recommend we ONLY link to this new article at the same time as we add an appropriate summary of it, otherwise it just looks like a bit of a ]. Patience! -- ] (]) 17:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::::Yeah, such a section and article hasn't been there for years, can wait a few hours/days. ] (]) 17:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Yeah no, that is far from a C class article especially about a BLP and if by excellent sources you mean many opinion and commentary pieces you would be correct. Otherwise you are just wrong in your assessment. ] (]) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, yeah. Definitely a class C, on its way to B. Most of the sources are objective news sources, not commentary. Almost all of them came from stable, established articles. It's also not a BLP. You see, the 'B' in BLP mean ''biography''.- ] 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::{{Reply to\|MrX}}. You do know that just because you say these things that does not make them fact right? Are you trying to argue that a complete article about a BLP does not fall into the BLP category? Take a look at the talk page for the article and look at the big BLP banner at the top, you are sorely mistaken in your views. ] (]) 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::Please don't ping me again. I have no interest in pursuing this line of discussion.- ] 19:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::PME is correct as to BLP, of course, as any read of the lead of ] shows. No opinion on the rest. ―] ] 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Update his portrait ==
	I hope that it's OK that I added a section to this article using the lead from what is now the main article. What with a world-wide explosion of news coverage on this incident I felt that we needed to put something in the article. And, it will help direct people to the new article. It needs perhaps work and the refs need fixing. ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop\|reason=See above -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			He got a new one 🙏🙏 ] (]) 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{notdone}} Please review the talk page and contribute to ongoing discussions before making new threads. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (2) ==
	Thanks {{u\|Popcornduff}} for fixing the language in the racial views section - think the same needs to be done ]. Am also wondering about adding this sort of criticism across the body, and perhaps to the lead... ] (]) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop\|See above. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	I did fix up some of it. I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that. ] (]) 05:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	:{{re\|Galobtter}}, regarding your comment''':''' "{{tq\|I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that}}". I agree. And the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article. If this is covered in the body then is should be appropriate for the lede. But, I am interested in other editors' opinion because this is strong stuff and I think some sort of consensus would be helpful (imho). ---] (]) 05:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Steve Quinn}} I've proposed it below. Leads indeed should summarize the body. ] (]) 05:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	== Cancellation of Visit to UK ==
			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)

	Is ~~some~~ ~~written~~ ~~mention~~ ~~warranted~~ ~~for~~ ~~his~~ ~~cancellation~~ of a ~~visit~~ to ~~the~~ ~~United~~ ~~Kingdom~~ in ~~February?~~ ] (]) 12:05, 12 January ~~2018~~ (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)
			:<span class="nowrap">] '''Not done'''</span><!--template:not done--> We can't use non-free images. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't think so. It seems like routine scheduling information.- ] 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== Challenge consensus item 44 ==
	:His potential visit to the UK has been one of the most discussed topics in the UK for nearly a year, and certainly the most controversial issue (especially considering the fact that the UK Parliament quite seriously debated banning him from entering the UK, that he is already banned from some local areas due to "islamophobic propaganda" and a "bigoted attitude towards women and ethnic minorities" and that he has earned the distinction of being barred from the UK parliament over "racism and sexism"). He also cancelled the visit "amid fears of mass protests". I think this should be mentioned in the article, especially given the widespread opinion (apparently shared by Trump) that the UK is the US' most important ally. --] (]) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::I think in a sentence in foreign policy perhaps? As part of a description of UK-US relations. ] (]) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::OK, I think I understand the importance a little better. I agree, a sentence or two should be able to cover it.- ] 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Any mention of this would have to include the lies he told on Twitter about it, of course. He blamed the Obama administration for selling the old US embassy for "peanuts" (it was already owned by the Duke of Westminster and the US just LEASED it) and building an expensive new one, when in fact the decision was made during the Bush administration due to security concerns. -- ] (]) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

			I would like to '''challenge''' consensus at ], item 44.
	This could be mentioned in several other articles, including the foreign policy one and the timeline one, as well as ] - but not in this biography IMO. --] (]) 18:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			:The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (])
			I do not believe that Trump and ] having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the ] not to ], and the fox then ] with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per ]. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--] (]) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea ]. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. ''']]''' 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --{{User:ExclusiveEditor/Signature}} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (3) ==
	:I'd have to agree. If it was a official state visit, I'd want to see it included here, but this was just to be at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new embassy. ] (]) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop\|See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::I think what was heavily discussed in the UK was a different UK trip by Trump, which I believe is still on at this point. Yet another goofy Trump event. But, seems trivial to me. ] (]) 18:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	:::We might mention (at those articles where we do it) that he claimed he was canceling because the new embassy he was supposed to open was "a bad deal made by the Obama administration." (The decision was actually made during the George W. Bush administration). "Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!" (Um, didn't he know about this long ago when he agreed to the visit?) --] (]) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			Change the portrait pictures to 2025 presidential picture ] (]) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{notdone}} We cannot use images that are copyrighted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (4) ==
	Possibly in the ] article but not here.] (]) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{atop\|Duplicate discussion of other discussions. Most prominently of ]. --] (]) 08:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=y}}
			Update portrait to be Donald Trumps official 2025 portrait pre inauguration day. ] (]) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (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. ―] ] 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== New Trump portrait copyright resolved ==
	== Why is there no section for Trump's mental health? ==
			{{atop\|Duplicate. See existing discussion above. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 05:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			] This portrait has been uploaded into public domain on official ] account of ] ]. ] (]) 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 \| ] \| ] 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Well? ] (]) 00:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:Check the discussion above and item #21. ] (]) 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Changing first paragraph after the inauguration ==
	== Adding criticized as racist to lead ==

			With the inauguration coming up in a few days, it may be time to consider changing the first paragraph of the lead after the inauguration. Here's one possibility.
			:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is currently the 47th ]. He previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.
			Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:"is" is present tense, so "currently" is superfluous. "Served" is past tense, so "previously" is superfluous. This leaves:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) ―] ] 09:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Let's confine "criminal" to ], shall we? If that passes, it can be added to whatever we come up with here. ―] ] 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Should "has been the 47th ] since 2025" be saved until January 1, or should we use it right away? –''']<sup> ] ]</sup>''' 22:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "He became a millionaire at age 8" ==

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

			== New image ==
			{{atop\|Duplicate. See existing discussion. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Since we got the 2025 portraits of Donald Trump and JD Vance, can we now use them as the main image for the pages? ] (]) 14:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Being discussed above. ] (])
			{{abot}}

			==Large subsections in the First Presidency section==
	My proposal is to add {{tq\|Many of his comments have been criticized as racist.}} after {{tq\|His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.}} The section on this has been added, and IMO this is the bare minimum to represent the wide criticism of bigotry he has received for comments, and of wide ranging and numerous incidents of comments perceived as racist as described in ] (which honestly could be trebled in size). ] (]) 05:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Misplaced Pages as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Misplaced Pages, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ] (]) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The lede summarizes the article. So yeah.] (]) 05:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			:Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.
	::I'd just as soon let things settle down a bit first. Not everything in the article needs to be in the Lede, and the racism stuff is brand new. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			:As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,
	:::Brand new? The criticism of racism stretches back 40 years, being especially numerous for the past 2 years. The section is new, but it really should've been there months ago. The section is reasonable, and that shouldn't matter anyhow when determining what to include per DUE and NPOV. ] (]) 06:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			::'''from''' "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."
	:::: Yes, the section is growing and should be mentioned in the lead. -- ] (]) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			::'''to''' "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".
	:::::A mention of this is long overdue. ] (]) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	:~~::Parts on accusations of "pandering to white nationalists" have been there too~~, ~~for months.~~ ] (]) 06:17, 13 January ~~2018~~ (UTC)		:Regards, ] (]) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Trump denies being racist, and has been accused of being racist. Do reliable sources say he IS racist? And listing accusations by political opponents and rivals in a BLP is a lot less notable than listing accusations by allies. Has Trump praised MLK and the Civil Rights movement? Has he touted the decreasing unemployment rate among minorities? If so, we need to include stuff like that for NPOV. He has often said that he wants immigration of skilled and highly-educated people, so what’s the evidence that those are code-words for “white”? You know, calling someone a “racist” is the worst kind of insult and (if it’s false) just as derogatory as anything Trump has been accused of saying. So we need to be careful. Okay?] (]) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Which is why it is "criticized as being racist". Absolutely nowhere in the statement does it say he is racist. Paul Ryan has called one of his statements racist. We don't need to include those stuff about praising MLK because they are not prominent in reliable sources per DUE. ] (]) 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::::When I asked whether reliable sources say he IS racist, I wasn’t implying that we are saying so, but rather that we should say whether reliable sources are saying so. As for how Trump and the White House defend themselves against these allegations, I think BLP almost always requires inclusion of info about denials even if reliable sources chose mostly to omit that stuff.] (]) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::Can add a "which he denied" if needed..RS sources are using "racially charged". But the fact is true that "many of his comments have been criticized as racist" ] (]) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:03, 17 January 2025

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

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

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

Article policies

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

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.

Please 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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

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

Business Mid‑importance

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

Climate change High‑importance

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

Conservatism High‑importance

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

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

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

New York City High‑importance

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

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

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

Television: American Mid‑importance

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

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

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

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

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

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

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

2010s Top‑importance

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

Page history

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

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

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

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

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

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

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

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)	10,126	10,126
Early life and education	3,073	3,073
Business career	149	35,705
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	7,258	7,258
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	8,027	46,292
Racial and gender views	9,364	9,364
Link to hate crimes	3,791	3,791
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	7,106
Public image	4,662	4,662
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	5,671	5,671
Total	404,124	404,124

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. MB 2437 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose, the wikilink is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Support His sentencing today has met WP:BLPCRIME requirement that a conviction has been secured for that crime, support adding and criminal in the lede sentence per consistency with other WP:CRIMINAL articles.Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As in: "Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name Marky Mark, is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
—Alalch E. 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or: "Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as Eminem (stylized as EMINƎM), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in Eminem#Legal issues. He wasn't running for president at the time . Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  @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)

The AP Stylebook says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? BootsED (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across 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)
- @Anonymous8206: Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on 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)

Misplaced Pages:NOTDEMOCRACY The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Seventh time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"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

Becomes moot approx. 76 hours from now. Superseded by #Changing first paragraph after the inauguration below. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 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.

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)

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.

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)

Wait - Until Library of Congress has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/

207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke emanating from the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. Barnt Toust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings (day or night). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. Barnt Toust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters are cute. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate edit requests/discussions

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

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

@Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. Barnt Toust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Barnt Toust 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)

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. Barnt Toust 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea have not conducted a nuclear test since. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. MB 2437 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Duplicate discussion of other discussions. Most prominently of #New Trump-produced portrait. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:25, 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 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)

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.

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.

Changing first paragraph after the inauguration

With the inauguration coming up in a few days, it may be time to consider changing the first paragraph of the lead after the inauguration. Here's one possibility.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is currently the 47th president of the United States. He previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"is" is present tense, so "currently" is superfluous. "Served" is past tense, so "previously" is superfluous. This leaves:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's confine "criminal" to the other thread, shall we? If that passes, it can be added to whatever we come up with here. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Should "has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025" be saved until January 1, or should we use it right away? –Gluonz 22:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"He became a millionaire at age 8"

Mandruss: You are right. Before people started "improving" what used to be the "Personal life" section (early life and education, family, health, and wealth) and messing with the cites, we had the correct information AND the actual sources for the information, two New York Times articles. Buettner/Craig p.30/31 mentions the trusts Fred T set up for his children by putting apartment complexes in their names and paying them rent, but it's not the source for "millionaire by age 8" (or for "became a millionaire at age 8":). NYT: By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year. I've given up trying to correct the cites or anything else in that section.

References

Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.

Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for SusanLesch. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. When you're chewing on life's gristle ... Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. "puhleaze" is undue:). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How is this not puffery? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

? Does it resemble anything at MOS:PUFFERY? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Well do we attribute the claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also wp:undue can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, fight the power! PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, and maybe not. But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

New image

Duplicate. See existing discussion. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 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.

Since we got the 2025 portraits of Donald Trump and JD Vance, can we now use them as the main image for the pages? Richie1509 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk)

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.

Large subsections in the First Presidency section

As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Misplaced Pages as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Misplaced Pages, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.

As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,

from "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."

to "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".

Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: