• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Second presidency of Donald Trump Second presidential transition of Donald Trump ... 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 Wikipedia'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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 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 Wikipedia. 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, 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). "Wikipedia 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' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia page". Fox News. Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate. Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Wikipedia 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: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 May 26 to June 1, 2024 June 23 to 29, 2024 July 14 to 20, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 October 20 to 26, 2024 October 27 to November 2, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 November 10 to 16, 2024 November 17 to 23, 2024 November 24 to 30, 2024

Other talk page banners

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,367 9,367 Early life and education 3,028 3,028 Personal life 19 5,027 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 35,770 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 7,323 7,323 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,640 3,640 Media career 3,452 5,115 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663 Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690 2016 presidential election 18,341 18,341 First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,824 Early actions 2,743 2,743 Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367 Domestic policy 20,687 20,687 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 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 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 26,084 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 12,830 12,830 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) 5,018 35,768 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 547 28,368 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 5,378 5,378 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,623 6,623 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 14,635 14,635 Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 46,266 Racial and gender views 9,377 9,377 Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793 Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,495 5,495 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,426 2,426 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,257 Books 3,217 3,217 Journals 8,022 8,022 External links 5,580 5,580 Total 402,514 402,514

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia?", 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose. Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"§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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

who pinned this? [1][2] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you made this change re archiving [3]. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." 2601:483:400:1CD0:324A:DECE:5253:C8FB (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archive

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Individual 1 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

WP:NOR Onikaburgers (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For infoboxes for politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?

While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article for the late Jimmy Carter, the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia president articles such as Washington and Carter? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? BusterD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"pelican"? BusterD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The difference here is Trump’s personalist politics. Status quo is fine Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [s.th. is done] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• Support His sentencing today[4] 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

    Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —Alalch E. 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    This request for comment (please read Wikipedia: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)[reply]

    @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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

    You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Support. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies WP:BLPCRIME. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Oppose. Not first-sentence material.—Alalch E. 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So is Mark Wahlberg. —Alalch E. 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  [5] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Wikipedia: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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.

  Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• Support Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.Arbeiten8 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  @Zaathras: your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Strong support On Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Big Thumpus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

• Comment — See the lead sentence of the Wikipedia article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @Mandruss: why "animal"? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Animal, noun sense 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia article is Allen Weisselberg. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "Does such a person even exist?" Perhaps the tribes of semi-unknown islands. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...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)[reply]

  @Big Thumpus: I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Wikipedia will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Venturing even further off topic, a future Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.[6]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man 38.95.21.27 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:F899:671:20F3:5EB3 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It needs to be in the first sentence of the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or after that date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further more, the suggested content is verifiable Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 198#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]