Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 157

Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump
The above discussion has gotten rather complex and messy. I split this new proposal because it seemed to me that a significant point of contention was the rape content, so hopefully, we can quickly achieve consensus on the other content, which are the basic facts, to include in the article first. I invite all editors to weigh in on this discussion to decide what content to include, and where.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

To make it easier to follow this long unwieldy section, here is a summary of the three questions at hand:— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed text:  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Part 1. Should we include the following text?

Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Part 2. Should we include the content on rape?

Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct?  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Part 3. Where should the content be placed?
 * Note: This discussion has been advertised at the following places: WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:AmPol, WT:GGTF, WP:RYT, and WT:LAW.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a very bad idea at this point. The discussion is chaotic and impossible to follow. It's tough enough for editors who have been engaged with this from the start. It's going to be nearly impossible for an uninvolved editor to come here, with no clearly defined issues and try to make any constructive contribution. Please remove whatever notifications you've made. If we get this to the point where we have a small number of clearly defined choices, it may then and only then be appropriate to ask for more uninvolved eyes. Or we may simply have resolved the issues here among ourselves. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be your opinion, and not a claim with any support in any policy or guideline. I have advertised the discussion at appropriate and relevant noticeboards and wikiproject talk pages in the neutral manner recommended by WP:CANVAS. I think with the above summary and below discussion, editors are perfectly able to determine their own opinions, read the options, and participate. Doubtless, many multiple discussions far worse than this are advertised widely every day without issue. If you have an issue with my notifications, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. I have no intention of removing them. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: We are not determining here precisely which version of the text should be included. These proposals are rough drafts. The question here is " Should we include this content? and where? " The specifics of "What form should this content take, if included?" are more closely delineated and debated in the "Different versions of the text" section at the bottom. Thanks.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: Should we include the basic facts following text?
POV caption stricken and replaced SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 1

 * Support as proposer, see the green box in my sources in part 2, this lawsuit and verdict has received widespread coverage in reliable sources, and satisfies WP:DUE.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: this has been widely discussed and I don't see a good reason to exclude it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should clarify: by "support" I mean I support including the verdict and what it was for. I don't think it HAS TO be in this wording, or including all the other information in this paragraph. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Agree with this proposed text. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as an appropriately weighted and DUE set of facts covered in many multiple WP:RSes. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support if part 2 is also included, otherwise oppose and support alternative by Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'm not sure I agree the jury finding can be split into "basic facts" and non-basic-facts—though I think the proposal by Space4Time3Continuum2x comes closest and presents the fewest NPOV concerns. Each of the findings were the basic facts; no one has pointed to a reliable source covering verdict that considered the rape finding to be so insignificant as to merit omission. I think an NPOV issue might emerge if the content is selectively included. But given the rarity of civil lawsuits against former presidents, I'd actually contend that any finding is notable, and they should therefore be included.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No This suit should not be introduced as noteworthy except in a statement of the verdict. See previous discussion and polling. This option assumes a consensus to include statement of Carroll's suit that has not been established. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, more proseline is precisely what this article doesn't need. No good reason to quote the allegation, mention the department store detail, quote Trump's response... A truly bad idea. The "original short version", and Space4T's new proposal below, are better. DFlhb (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Concise, sufficiently comprehensive, and accurate. Looks good!  -- Jayron 32 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (contingent on acceptance of Part 2) — Along with Part 2 it contains facts of the case that help inform the reader about the lawsuit and verdict. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, WP:NPOV and misquoting. We have a verdict, so we’re past "alleged" and "denied the allegation".  For good measure, I removed "claim" for Trump's statement.  Replaced Fortune with original AP article. Counter-proposal:
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively: ... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ... Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively: ... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ... Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Is the battery sexual abuse phrase intentional? (Just checking!) Also if we're going to say she accused him of rape, I think the npov concerns come up even stronger, because then it makes it look like, in accepting the battery claim, the jury also accepted the rape claim, when it rejected the rape claim and accepted a sexual abuse claim. (For purposes of this discussion I'm using "claim" in a legal sense—a plaintiff's claim against a defendant.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's one of the "three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching", per the judge's instructions, as cited in the NYT. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ... I think we're maybe shooting past each other here. I mean the term "battery sexual abuse"—like words in that order. I'm 100% not an expert, but that doesn't strike me as a legitimate phrase, and I don't see it in the Times article or the jury instructions.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the notion that we should include the tenets that Carroll has accused Trump and that the jury found him liable of sexual abuse and defamation contingent that it also mentions that the jury found him not liable for rape as well. This content is WP:DUE considering that this has a court ruling. This !vote should not be one taken as a full support for the specific text above because I think we could do better.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 2: Should we include the content on rape?
Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.

 starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 2

 * Support - the content is WP:DUE, as shown in international coverage in sources below, and the content closely follows the verdict form, which states: Using this wording, we avoid connotations that suggest that Trump did rape Carroll but should not pay anything, or connotations that suggest that it was proven that Trump did not rape Carroll, which is slightly different. There is also a WP:BLP issue to resolve if we describe the rape allegation but do not describe that that it was found to be unproven.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 03:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to my green box list of 25+ mainstream sources on the rape content that was obviously shifted by another editor.  starship .paint  (exalt) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Adding that Trump was not found guilty of rape solves some possible NPOV issues. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the article says anything about "forcibly raped and groped her", then it should say that the rape was not proven. If the article doesn't say this allegation, then it doesn't matter to me. I don't have an opinion whether the article should mention the allegations or not. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion not for the NPOV description, but rather for the more strict WP:DUE and WP:RSUW reasoning. It is covered in many prominent HQRSes about this topic (DJT) lasting over time and in depth. It is a very notable event in Trump's life, and our sources reflect that. This content, thereby, deserves at least minimal inclusion. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion on NPOV and DUE grounds. Regardless of the specific arguments by editors hoping to exclude the rape finding, let's just be clear about the result they desire: a page that only mentions the findings that were adverse to Trump and excludes the non-adverse findings. That's an obvious NPOV defect, and it's not consistent with how reliable sources have covered the jury's findings: As starship's list shows, and as I said above, every reliable covering the findings has reported the rape finding and the sexual abuse/defamation findings. See CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. And, frankly, the notion that readers can scour this other page if they want to know about the existence of the non-adverse finding is just ridiculous. I'd also incorporate my full opinion above, in which I responded to various arguments made in favor of exclusion.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No This is all WP:NOTNEWS framing of the content. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article. This question and the citations to news coverage ignores the views stated by many editors in the prior discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Part 1 is sufficient. -- Jayron 32 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that part 1 is already too detailed and too long, yet it requires the inclusion of part 2 since we can't bring up the rape allegation without bringing up the jury verdict about it. I oppose the framing of either proposal. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of the rape verdict per Jerome Frank Disciple. As in Part 1, my !vote is not meant to be an endorsement of the specific text, just the notion that the rape verdict should be mentioned. Ultimately, there are two strong argument for inclusion. (1) The rape verdict has been extensively covered in reliable sources and the same sources that include the other findings. Go see the numerous references brough by starship below. (2) There is a NPOV issue in only mentioning what he was found liable for. It's POV cherry-picking of the verdict to only show the adverse findings by the jury. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Oddly, Trump himself isn't announcing that he was found liable for sexual abuse and not for rape. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For the battery claim, the jury instructions allowed for four results, three degrees of battery or no finding of fault. Separately, the jury was instructed to find for or against defamation. The jury unanimously found for sexual battery and defamation. So, that's what we document. If we listed all of the possible results; we would need to describe the difference. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I sort of see this argument. But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results" (like "forcible touching"). The jury made no finding as to forcible touching, and as such, I think it's fair to say that forcible touching was just a "possible" finding. But the jury did make a finding as to rape; it found that rape had not been proven.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell it to the judge -- and NY legislators. Those were the jury instructions.
 * The jury found for the second. We need to stop deciding what we think should or should not be the law and just report what happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell it to the jury form (or the many reliable sources reporting on it). The jury found that rape had not been proven. It found that sexual abuse had been proven. It made no finding on forcible touching. That's not what I think should be the law—that's what happened.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You said: But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The jury found for the second. We need to stop deciding what we think should or should not be the law and just report what happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tell it to the jury form (or the many reliable sources reporting on it). The jury found that rape had not been proven. It found that sexual abuse had been proven. It made no finding on forcible touching. That's not what I think should be the law—that's what happened.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You said: But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You said: But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: POV Framing of question
This section is framed with POV prominence given to the rape text. Here is the alternative: This fits the longstanding narrative of the article. It should have been posted with equal prominence to get neutral reactions to the proposed choice.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) *Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bob K31416 I just want to make sure—are you meaning to support starship.paint's proposal or the proposal SPECIFICO added in the middle here? @SPECIFICO I'm going to segment off your proposal into its own section to avoid this kind of confusion later. Bob, for now I'll leave your support under Specifico's proposal (even though based on your other comments I don't think that's what you meant) and let you move it up if that's what you intended.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am moving it to the section where it was originally. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course! He just reverted me turning his proposal into a subsection ... so we'll just have to keep an eye here, because no, in order for people to properly voice their opinion on the part 2 proposal, they need to make sure they're keeping their position above the "alternative" that was shoehorned into the middle of the section.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Could you move this discussion of POV Framing of question, which looks like a subsection, to the discussion section? Otherwise it may be disruptive. Bob K31416 (talk)
 * Oppose SPECIFICO alternative: This proposal censors the non adverse finding while including the adverse findings. See additional reasoning below. Would be willing to accept Space's "battery and defamation" alternative below.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I could say that you are proposing "censorship" of the explanation of sexual battery. But, neither that nor this is censorship and I wish you would stop misusing that term. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, I would say it is censorship! (On both counts). But of course there are many, many definitions of censorship—and I'd absolutely concede the way I'm using it doesn't fit every definition ... unless you consider WP editors the effective governing body of Wikipedia ... but no need to get into that discussion, so if you'd prefer I use a different word, I'm happy too! "This proposal erases the non-adverse finding while including the adverse finding."-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the word "comment" to address your concern. It is the same question being asked by OP, except that OP framed the question in a way that presumes the response that "rape" etc. should be included. I added the short version that was in the article and endorsed by various editors. This is one of the reasons I tried (and failed) to save everybody's time and attention by first getting agreement as to whether this poll was a good idea or well-constructed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the same question being asked by OP ... Sorry, just for clarification, are you saying that it's a comment on Part 1?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for part 2

 * 1) Associated Press (link) - paragraph 2: The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped...
 * 2) Reuters (link) - paragraph 21: The jurors found Trump sexually abused her but not that he raped her.
 * 3) Agence France Presse (link) - paragraph 2: The nine jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll's accusation of rape...
 * 4) CNN (link) - paragraph 3: ... the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her.
 * 5) NBC News (link) - paragraph 1: ... not liable for her alleged rape ... and paragraph 3: Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll, 79, had proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll,” the nine-person jury checked the box that said “no.”
 * 6) ABC News, American version (link) - paragraph 4: Jury members found that Trump did not rape Carroll but sexually abused her ...
 * 7) CNBC (link) - paragraph 3: Jurors notably did not find Trump liable for rape ...
 * 8) CBS News (link) - paragraph 4: The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, but not rape, and also found that he defamed Carroll ...
 * 9) Bloomberg (link) - paragraph 3: The jury stopped short of finding Trump liable for rape, which has a technical definition under New York state law.
 * 10) USA Today (link) - paragraph 2: The jury, which deliberated fewer than three hours, opted not to find Trump liable for rape but rather sexual abuse that injured Carroll.
 * 11) The New York Times (link) - paragraph 2: The jury did not, however, find he had raped her, as she had long claimed.
 * 12) The Washington Post (link) - paragraph 9: While jurors found for Carroll on both of those claims, they did not find that she convinced them Trump raped her.
 * 13) The Wall Street Journal (link) The jury, following a two-week civil trial, didn’t find that Mr. Trump committed rape but found it more likely than not that he sexually abused Ms. Carroll ...
 * 14) NPR (link) - paragraph 2: The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll.
 * 15) PBS (link) - paragraph 2: ... it stopped short of saying Mr. Trump raped her.
 * 16) UPI (link) - paragraph 2: It did not, however, reach a unanimous agreement that he raped Carroll.
 * 17) Telemundo, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) - paragraph 1: Carroll acusó al expresidente de violación, pero el jurado le consideró no responsable ...
 * 18) Univision, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) - paragraph 2: Los miembros del jurado rechazaron la afirmación de Carroll de que fue violada ...
 * 19) Australian Broadcasting Corporation (link) - paragraph 1: Former US president Donald Trump sexually abused magazine writer E Jean Carroll and then defamed her by branding her a liar, a jury in a civil trial has decided, but the jurors found he did not rape her.
 * 20) British Broadcasting Corporation (link) - paragraph 2: But Mr Trump was found not liable for raping E Jean Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.
 * 21) Al Jazeera (link) - paragraph 4: The nine-member jury determined on Tuesday that the ex-president did not rape Carroll ...
 * 22) Der Speigel (link) ... Der frühere US-Präsident stand ursprünglich wegen Vergewaltigungsvorwürfen der Journalistin E. Jean Carroll vor Gericht, die Jury sah diesen Vorwurf jedoch als nicht bewiesen an.
 * 23) The Guardian (link) - paragraph 2: The jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, as she alleged.
 * 24) Forbes staff (link) - paragraph 1: A jury found former President Donald Trump liable in civil court for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, but unanimously rejected her claim that Trump raped her ...
 * 25) The Hill (link) - paragraph 2: The nine-member jury found Trump did not commit rape, but jurors found him liable for sexual abuse, another form of sexual battery.
 * 26) Politico (link) - paragraph 4: The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her. The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her.


 * These are contemporaneous news reports and are not indicative of due weight for Trump's top-level biography page in an encyclopedia. Any judgment based on such inference is invalid.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This argument holds very little weight in my opinion, per WP:NOTFINISHED. If that's true, then you are welcome to remove it in the future when it is no longer relevant. Until then, our sources clearly say it is DUE, so it should be included. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO: We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article. Where in the policies and guidelines are you deriving this argument from? WP:DUE and WP:TERTIARY do not say that. They say it only comes down to tertiary sources when the secondary sources disagree. In this case, they do not. There are tens of thousands of news sources (many high quality) covering this event in just the last 5 days, in some places even more than the Access Hollywood tape:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! "Trump verdict E Jean Carroll" ! "Trump Access Hollywood Tape"
 * Google News:
 * 111,000
 * 4,460
 * Google Scholar:
 * 7,910
 * 10,900
 * Gale OneFile:
 * 797
 * 3,990
 * EBSCO:
 * 117
 * 383
 * } — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please strike this. Searches like this have no meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 117
 * 383
 * } — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please strike this. Searches like this have no meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Misuse and misunderstanding of search results to support invalid and false conclusion "lies, damned lies, and statistics" as the saying goes, does not tell us anything about due weight for an encyclopedia article. Search results that have survived seven years are highly significant per our 10-year test and this is a strong indication of noteworthiness for an encyclopeda. Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought. This is a baldfaced equivocation and this table is worthless to us. The fact is that with each passing day, a smaller percentage of the secondary and tertiary sources on the trial even mention "rape". The significant fact is that he was found liable for battery and defamation. BTW: Nobody has cited the WP:TERTIARY policy section. That is a strawman. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I also didn't understand your comment that we would "need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE".-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought Why would that affect more impartial/comprehensive databases like EBSCO and Gale? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Same issue.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Update Note that with each passing day, there is less mention of "rape" in discussion of the Carroll verdict. It's receded even at Fox, who are now on to bedtime stories about the "Durham Report". The evening of the verdict, Fox blared "Trump exonerated of rape" as its lead story - but I have not heard them say this recently.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 3: Where should the content be placed?
Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct?  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 3

 * In the misogyny and sexual harassment section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say in misogyny and sexual harrassment section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above for Option B, for Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. Per the principle of least astonishment, we have an imperative to put content where it would be most sought after. A person reading this table of contents would see the heading "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" and expect some content there about E. Jean Carroll's allegations of sexual misconduct and Trump's defamation towards her. Someone would not equally be "astonished" if this content were not present where investigations about his financial misconduct are, as these are largely two different spheres of Trump's WP:DUE-establishing WP:RSes. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-presidency section, subsection "Sexual battery and defamation lawsuit", for now. Subsection heading possibly to be changed to "civil cases", later; there will likely be at least one other civil case, the NY case for fraud. I would not look for post-presidential criminal and civil actions against Trump in the "public profile" (Trump's public image) section or on Public image of Donald Trump, I'd look in post-presidency and Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Narrowly Option B. I sort-of see what Space4Time3Continuum2x is saying, but I also think that someone looking at the misogyny and sexual harassment section would be surprised to not see the lawsuit there. The lawsuit is just inherently germane to that section-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the sexual harassment section. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends - If we end up with it being short, like a sentence or two, I think the misogyny and sexual harassment section would be fine, but if it's long it could be UNDUE in that section and require a separate section under post-presidency. I think ideally we should have a shorter sentence in the misogyny section. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 15:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for part 3

 * Re @Iamreallygoodatcheckers would you support having a longer inclusion in the post-presidency and then a shorter mention in the misogyny section? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I don't like redundancy in article, especially articles that are too long. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * eh, it was worth a try. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
 starship .paint  (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * . See above multi-part discussion.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . See above multi-part discussion.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . See above multi-part discussion.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . See above multi-part discussion. I think that's everyone who participated in the recent past discussions, and I apologise if I left anyone out.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * have you considered turning this to a RfC? <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - I thought there were enough potential participants even without an RFC, but I do not object if you choose to turn it into one.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I prefer structuring text to emphasize important information rather than using a chronological narrative. In this case, the jury decision is more important than details about the original complaint. So the para should begin with the decision. Also saying that someone had proved something is tendentious. We would say for example that Charles Manson was found guilty of murder, not that the prosecutor proved he was guilty of murder. Furthermore, the decision is not final since it is subject to appeal and civil courts decide on a balance of probablities. So we should avoid a triumphant tone in the text. TFD (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the propositions shouldn't be text-proposals, just general ideas being brought forth, such as "Part 1: should we include he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation" and "Part 2: should we say he was not found liable for rape." <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 04:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree largely with TFDs arguments above, I will also say the wording is awkward not just tendentious. There has to be a better way to word the content than such a roundabout phrase about having not proved X or Y. If there isn't, I am glad it is close to the source. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - apologies that I did not word it in the way that would best satisfy you. May I suggest supporting the content in spirit but raising the possibility of some re-ordering and re-wording to the text?  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yes I agree, I support the text as written but would prefer a tighter version. I do agree with the choice (intentional or unintentional) to leave out certain UNDUE details like 1) which court these things are in (NY state supreme, 2nd circuit appeals), 2) the very specific dates, 3) the makeup of the jury, etc. I think any of those details would likely be UNDUE on this page. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , typo, ^  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think given the particulars of the jury finding, it actually makes sense to lead with the explanation (that's what I did in my proposed version). I do think the order here is a little strange—I'd personally state all the findings before the damages (e.g., "Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages."), but of course if we lead with "Trump was found liable for", then that will be even harder to do. I also think the second half of the first sentence in part 1 is a bit awkward. (Maybe "In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s, and for defamation on the basis of Trump's 2022 comment that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.? Idk rough drafts.) But we can nitpick the wording after the RFC.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both proposals are too detailed for this bio. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict. Either with or inline link, depending on location. I agree with TFD that the jury decision is more important than the original complaint, and don't agree with the other proposals. This version is devoid of any "tone" and sufficient until the verdict becomes final or is thrown out by the appeals court.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with this version (no NPOV concern), but I disagree that a version that names the claims is inherently too much detail. I do think some have been confused because this was, temporarily, given its own subsection, and they didn't realize that was controversial at the time—that's the impression I was under when I drafted my proposed long version. As I've said, given the rarity of civil suits against former presidents, and the even greater rarity of jury findings, I do think the suit and the findings are inherently relevant and sufficiently notable to include here. And even my hyper-detailed "long version" was ultimately ... four sentences.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "battery and defamation" is not a good summary. This is not "Legalapedia" it's Wikipedia. We should say "sexual abuse and defamation" as that is what our highest quality RSes say. Otherwise I think @Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is fine, if perhaps too tersely worded. I would, for example, say "Shortly after, Trump appealed the verdict" or "Trump has appealed the verdict" or similar and remove the "her" in "pay her". I would also include at least one or two more sources since this is a BLP issue and that guideline recommends multiple independent sources on stuff like this. I would combine @Jerome Frank Disciple's version and your version, STC. E.g. copyedit:
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd, with regret, have to strongly object to that proposal. Particularly and especially if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape finding. (Though, to be clear, as I've said, I think we should mention that finding regardless.) I know that it doesn't mention the findings first—as I said above, I'm not convinced doing so is prudent here given the semi-complex findings—but I think this is the best version: (I'm leaving out references, which I've previously included, because they're easy to add and nothing here is controversial):
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences.if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape findingfair point. I would agree if we use that quote, we should also mention that the jury did not find him liable for that. If we end up leaving out the rape finding, then we could summarize instead as:
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences. But even more have said that the rape accusation and finding should be included. (I'm also not sure a consensus agree with TFD's argument. In the above discussion, one thing that was repeatedly mentioned was that we should say that a jury found that Carroll didn't prove that Trump had raped her, not that the jury found that Trump didn't rape her. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the other findings?) Now, Iamreallygoodatcheckers suggested a Part I that says the adverse findings and a Part II that says the non adverse finding, but I'm not sure how to phrase that without a lot of awkwardness. Frankly, I don' think it's at all unusual to start with a lawsuit being filed before saying the result of the lawsuit—particularly in a span of 3 sentences.
 * Best I can do (to meet Iamreallygoodatcheckers's suggestion combined with yours and Space4Time3Continuum2x's proposals):
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this version, as a compromise between my preferences and those of others. It's comprehensive, succinct, takes up very little space, and is clearly DUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw look at us go. I kept fumbling with how to mention the adverse findings first without awkwardly mentioning the rape finding ... and this possible solution came to me when I took another look at 's proposed text. Also pinging and  to see how they feel about this.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Immediately after the verdict, the Fox headline was “Trump exonerated from rape charge”. I fear saying that rape was not found without explaining just what the finding of sexual assault means will lead to guys thinking that’s just like when I stole a kiss from Betty Sue after the prom and she said “yecch”. Much ado. Sexual assault is a grievous attack and we may come across as belittling it by saying, well, could have been worse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So the official finding was "sexual abuse". Just want to make sure we're using the right terms. Separately, frankly, though I usually hate when this is invoked, that strikes me as a WP:RGW argument—that we should set the record straight. Update: And I also don't think anyone would seriously see a "sexual abuse" finding and think "oh he probably just kissed her without her consent". That seems like a pretty absurd stretch. If you want to spend more words describing the claims, that's one thing, but "Let's censor the rape finding so that people don't have this absurd interpretation of a sexual-abuse finding" just doesn't fly with me. It's enough to describe the claims and findings accurately—using their proper names—and depend on the article on the case to delve into more detail.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) --21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing whatsoever to do with RGW. This has to do with leaving the reader with an accurate picture. The jury found for battery, which is worse than assault. Yes, use the correct terms. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can strike them. As for what other people might think, there were women at his rallies after the Access Hollywood tape with t-shirts pointing downward saying "grab me here." It would be a mistake to believe everyone who reads WP thinks rationally about sexual battery. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I updated my prior post, marked it as updated, even pinged the user to alert him to the update. The user then accused me of deleting a post after he had responded to it. I pointed this out on the user's talk page ... alas, the claim is still here. Oh well.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have run into four ECs trying to respond to you as you keep editing your own responses. And anyone is welcome to read the nonsense you posted to my TP, along with Bish's response to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you concede what you said is wrong? Thanks, I'll RPA it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Read Bish's response to you and stop these attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to end the discussion here. You said that I deleted a comment after you responded to it. I said that wasn't true. You came back and said "well you were editing your comment so much that I ran into edit conflicts". I apologize for the edit conflicts! But those edit conflicts don't make what you said true. I brought this up on your page. You asked me not to respond there. I tried collapsing the discussion here because we are way off point, but you—despite complaining about how I leave snide comments in edit summaries—called that collapse "disgusting behavior" and reverted.
 * If you want to keep discussing this, feel free, but it's not really appropriate for this talk page, and, as such, I'm not responding to this thread anymore. Once you're done spilling ink, if you would collapse, I'm sure I and the other editors trying to discuss the topic at hand would appreciate it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just falsely accused me of making a PA by leaving an RPA after an admin said it was you that caused the problem. It was not a PA. Yours was. Stop it. It is not conducive to collaboration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Space4T's version is good. "Battery" is accurate and can be wikilinked. Oppose the Shibbolethink and JFD versions. We already say that many women accused him of rape, so there's no NPOV benefit to going into detail about one (in fact it harms NPOV, since we'd be going into more detail about the one rape claim that was rejected, than about all the others). There's also no point in adding falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up".... That's the reason for the defamation claim, but the link isn't made explicit, so readers who don't understand what sexual assault has to do with defamation won't understand it any better. Readers should just be directed to the Carroll v Trump article. "Falsely" is also redundant with mentioning the verdict. Too many words that don't serve any purpose. Strunk wept. DFlhb (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you apply the reverse logic? If he had been found liable for rape, would you say, "Well we can't include that because going into that detail might make readers think the other accusations are also true?"-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: "falsely" isn't redundant? That sentence is describing Carroll's allegations. Falsity is inherent to a defamation claim.* (Okay they're like two states where that's not always true but I'm talking generally.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: "falsely" isn't redundant? That sentence is describing Carroll's allegations. Falsity is inherent to a defamation claim.* (Okay they're like two states where that's not always true but I'm talking generally.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Meta-question
Should we proceed with the new structured poll above, or is further discussion better so we agree on options to be polled? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Proceed with the "multi-part proposal" as identified in the poll above.
 * 2) Abort this poll and continue discussion to collaboratively identify questions for any new poll.

This poll is premature and poorly constituted, because it does not address the the crux of the issues raised by editors above. Forcing a discussion into a second structured poll, when the first was premature, will only impede the effort to agree on what text should be added to this article -- which entails NOTNEWS and WEIGHT, rather than how many secondary news sources we can google. Without any disrespect to Starship.paint, this was a bad move, and we can return to any future poll after WP:RFCBEFORE has given us the right structure to find a good solution. Now that we've been asked to go through another poll, we need first to determine whether that is a reasonable way forward at this juncture.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 As already commented above, Starship - despite all good intentiions -- has not worded the poll well enought to reflect what editors think would be constructive choices. Excessive structure and limited choices only force editors to add more and more alternatives, which is what Starship says they wanted to remedy. Cancel this poll and continue discussion, first identifying key issues of disagreement. Unfortunately, the poll above fails to do so. See hat below for further rationale<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 1. I do think the selected possibilities were unfortunate, but I don't think this discussion is close to agreeing on some basic points, points that I think it would help to resolve before we try to find the perfect wording. At the very least, the RFC can hopefully provide consensus on those points.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the poll does not address the most fundamental issues. It's a glaring entrenchment on the very problem it purports to solve - a premature poll with narrowly defined choices that leads to further alternatives and dissents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 the structured proposal above is perfectly delineated to move forward on this. I think a consensus will likely arise out of it, and we can move on from there. If necessary, we can solicit wider input from the applicable noticeboards. But no, I do not think we should abandon that format and to do so would be tendentious/counterproductive to achieving consensus, in my opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2, strongly. Presenting two proposed texts, with one as the baseline and one as the add-on, basically guarantees that the baseline text will "win". Not an effective way to structure a discussion or resolve a dispute, especially when the "baseline" text is far too detailed and not a straightforward, common-sense option. DFlhb (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2. What DFlhb said. Should we include the basic facts? vs. Should we include the content on rape? -, that's an evaluation right there, i.e., who wouldn't want to include the basic facts. The basic facts for this top bio are that a jury in a civil case found Trump liable for battery and defamation and that he is appealing the verdict.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Different versions of the text (RFC?)
I, personally, think this is headed towards an RFC, and we should probably discuss what, exactly will be proposed there.

I don't think we need to present the question of where to include the information. Instead, I think we should present options for discussing the lawsuit. Since I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on our own, we should probably stop criticizing each other's proposals, and, instead, each faction should start making sure their view is captured by the proposal we present at an RFC. As a starting matter, I would suggest the following four options be included:


 * 1) 's version:
 * 2) In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict.
 * 3) 's version:
 * 4) In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
 * 5) My/'s version:
 * 6) In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury determined that Carroll established had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
 * 7) No discussion of lawsuit.

From my perspective, Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is the most neutral but also the least informative; Specifico's version is brief and more informative, but the least neutral; my/shibbolethink's version is the most informative but a bit long.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add, I don't think we necessarily need an RFC, if there is a consensus clearly established in the section above. RFCs are not necessary to establish consensus, the section above can do just fine, especially if, after some time as passed, we ask for a formal closure at WP:CR.We for sure do not need option 4 or option 2 in an RFC, given that these are overwhelmingly not going to establish consensus given the section above. Option 2 can be included if you want. But it would be wrong to include option 4 when there is a clear and evident consensus to include something.I do agree that your framing of directly comparing versions is ideal for an RFC, though. I just don't think we need an RFC. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Obviously it's a tough ask for an involved editor to put on closer shoes, but can I ask which way you think the consensus is going? In terms of headcount (insert standard "not a vote" disclaimer here) in part 2: I see 6 include; 4 exclude; and 1 saying if the rape allegation is mentioned, then include.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I would say, though I am obviously partial, I think it's quite clear we have a building consensus in favor of both part 1 and part 2. Part 2 is less clear than part 1, but I think if I were to close it right now, I would say "marginal consensus in favor" or similar. What would really help is some outside input, so I'll probably place notices at the WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN noticeboards. (and then note it at the top, as is recommended at WP:CANVAS) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I sort-of wonder if we should start a new (cleaner) section to present these options before getting other noticeboards. For example, I think the specific wording proposed in part I (which invokes one theory of battery Carroll prevailed on while excluding the theory of battery Trump prevailed on) has an NPOV issue without Part II, but that Space's short proposal doesn't have that issue, and more than a few editors have said they don't support the specific wordings proposed.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think doing so after we already have a lot of participation here could be considered tendentious and counterproductive to achieving consensus. People aren't dumb, they can figure out the debate that's ongoing, I really do think so. And then, once consensus on Part 2 is clearer, then we can move forward on a version. It's a moot point to consider some of the above versions if Part 2 is clearly a yes or a no. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If we are going to have a RfC do we really need to include both 1 and 2? They are practically the same sentence. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, version 1 is more acceptable than version 2. Bearing in mind that the causes of action in this lawsuit there were for battery and defamation, but there were three theories of battery (rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching) the plaintiff argued—the jury only had to accept one of those theories (hence the verdict form allowing them to skip sexual abuse and forcible touching if they found rape ... and allowing them to skip forcible touching if they found sexual abuse). I think it's accurate and complete to say that Trump was found liable for battery and defamation. But I think once you open the door to the specific theories of battery—i.e. once you mention sexual abuse—you have to discuss all the findings on those theories—i.e. that they found that the evidence indicated that Trump sexually abused Carroll but not that he raped Carroll. That said, few people have expressed an option like version 1 as their "first choice"—almost everyone's proposed drafts (and even SpaceX's longer version) include the sexual-abuse theory (and, if they support its inclusion, the rape theory)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a material difference in our purposes as a wikipedia between saying "battery" in a legal sense and "sexual abuse" in a more specific verdict and public-facing RS sense. One, to my eyes, obscures the reality through some WEASEL-ing of what "technically" the law says, versus the other which says what all our best RSes say. I would prefer version 2. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's certainly less specific—as I said way above I think it's the least informative choice. But if we're going to already be less specific and partially censor the jury verdict, then I think the higher level of abstraction is, at least, more neutral.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording re: Rebukes
Hello! reverted this edit, and I'd like to open the floor to more discussion.

The passage as it currently stands is in the "Presidency" section. It reads:

It cites two articles from 2017 and one from 2019.

As I see it, the sentence as it currently stands is a mix of present perfect and present tense. But ... why? Based on the years of the sources, it's clear the rebukes that are cited refer to what the paragraph opens with—the disparagement he made "as president". Now, I'm sure some 2020 and maybe 2021 sources could be found re-echoing those points, but is there a present-day continuation that makes present-perfect structure really useful here? I would suggest:

SPECIFICO said that this edit "completely changes the meaning of the text". I disagree, but if that's true, then all the more reason for the text to be changed, since neither the 2017 or 2019 articles could possibly be used to support a present-day continuation.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Wikipedia articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Eliminate "as president". He didn't just do it as president. He disparaged courts and judges as a private citizen, as president, and now again as a private citizen; it is a lifelong habit of his. For just one example, see Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, whom he repeatedly attacked as a "hater" and a "Mexican". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with that removal!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * works for me. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead
In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune  [ talk ]   02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in adding this source for it: –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should add the reference to the lead. Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section. We put the references where the same material appears in the text. In this case, the claim is made and supported in the 2016 presidential campaign section, where it says "His campaign statements were often opaque and suggestive,[154] and a record number of them were false.[155][156][157] The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.[158][159]" So the claim that his use of false statements is "unprecedented in modern politics" has five strong references in the body of the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section—this is directly contradicted by MOS:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I think the citation is warranted. Cessaune   [ talk ]   05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus item 58 says this as well. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Space4T, what's your objection? Cessaune  [ talk ]   14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t even noticed this thread right before the Trump verdict swamped this page. I agree with .  Also, no disrespect to McGranahan but I don’t see that an anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas is the kind of scholar and expert we want to cite, and cite prominently in the lead, on the unprecedented number and frequency of Trump's lies. The anthropology of lying, "understand[ing] lies and liars in their cultural, historical, and political context", "show[ing] the unexpected ways that community can form around lies" seems off-topic for Trump’s biography.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting: I think anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas seem to be two separate roles (i.e. they could be written "historian of Tibet and the Himalayas and an anthropologist"), based on the rest of the paragraph:
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's argument is centered on their belief that we don't cite references in the lead "per Wikipedia style", which is patently false. Tons and tons of articles cite even the most inane stuff (example). Per LEADCITE: Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source, but this is true only in some cases: ...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. When I read this, it seems to say to me that uncontroversial assertions in the lead don't necessarily need a citation, while any controversial assertions require one, regardless of whether the assertion is in the lead or not.
 * In Wikivoice, we treat a vague assertion (degree unprecedented) as a fact, when it is, in fact, an opinion. It's an opinion held by many people and backed up by evidence, but we don't characterize it as such. Essentially we're saying Trump's actions were X, Y, and Z instead of Trump's actions have been characterized as X, Y, and Z, as it would be on most other pages. We don't source the assertion, and I think this violates LEADCITE.
 * We can find a better source if that's an issue. Cessaune   [ talk ]   16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can find a better source if that's an issue. Cessaune   [ talk ]   16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pings. I took another look, and I find that I greatly understated the extent to which this claim is documented in the text. In addition to the "2016 presidential election" which I cited above, there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this article text. In fact, there is a whole subsection under "Public profile" called "False and misleading statements". Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead.
 * And in reply to Cessaune's objection to the word "unprecedented": "unprecedented" is not always a vague assertion or an opinion; it is often a statement of fact. Obama's election as the first Black president was unprecedented. Trump's TWO impeachments were unprecedented. Nancy Pelosi's election as the first woman Speaker of the House was unprecedented. These are not opinions. And neither is the incredible volume of "false and misleading" statements issued by Trump before, during, and since his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. If a citation is needed in the lead, I would use one of the mainstream sources already in the text, rather than the assertion from a scholar who has such diverse and wide ranging claimed areas of expertise. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Your statement that there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this article strikes me as a SNYTHy interpretation of the text. Even if a million sources each cite completely different times in which Trump has lied/falsely asserted/mislead, we still wouldn't be able to directly say "to a degree unprecedented in American politics" based on those statements alone, so an argument that synthesizes information in this way is weak IMO. "Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead"—That's not how it works. There is no count of citations in the body that will ever make up for a lack of citations in the lead when pertaining to controversial statements. Per LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead (emphasis not mine). I'm challenging it.
 * 2) It is in no way controversial to say, in Wikivoice, that Obama's election as the first black president was unprecedented. It is a fact: the United States of America, thoughout its entire history, had never before elected a black president. This is notable. It is in no way controversial to say that, in Wikivoice, Trump's impeachments were unprecedented. Out of 43 presidents, 2 had been impeached. In less than four years, Trump doubled the number of presidential impeachments. This is, again, notable.
 * However, it is controversial to say in Wikivoice (and more importantly, without an inline citation) that Trump's falsehoods were so numerous that they were unprecedented. Sure, firehose of falsehood and all that, and it's obviously notable, but how many lies does it take for one to have made an unprecedented impact? One? A few? Nixon did it with a few.
 * How can we assert this so matter-of-factly without a source at all? If RSs report on this (they do), then fine, but who are we as Wikipedia editors to decide how many falsehoods it takes to attain the legendary status of "unprecedented"? 'It's in the body' is not an argument. I've pointed to LEADCITE three times. The body is irrelevant. The thing is, the vague threshold here is so loosely defined that I nearly object to the entire sentence, let alone the lack of citation. How can we just throw around words like this without citations? Surely I can't be the only one who sees something wrong with this. Cessaune   [ talk ]   03:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cessaune: You may be interested in the discussion that resulted in this sentence. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read it before. It doesn't really touch on the issue at hand. Sure, people talk about Wikivoice and stuff like that, but, for the most part, the arguments don't line up smoothly. Also, the old sentences were nasty. Ugh. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described... makes me want to gag. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, are you challenging the entire sentence or the part you quoted above, to a degree unprecedented in American politics? The local agreement on this page was to not use cites in the lead because pretty much every sentence has been flagged as wrong and/or controversial from at least once to more times than I can remember. You, FormalDude, supported the agreement  until you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_145#RfC:_Should_the_lead_section_have_any_citations? didn’t], resulting in consensus item 58. So here we are again, deciding what to cite in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC).


 * Poor us, having to do our job as content curators and reliably source what we say. That comment of mine from over a year ago is not support for never having any citations in the lede, it's merely an explanation of why it doesn't need citations for everything. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

See also this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_22#Should_the_manual_of_style_require_citations_in_the_lead_for_contested_statements_about_BLPs? MOS discussion]: Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point. I counted more comments opposing than supporting lead cites. The "here" button links to this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_21#Necessity_of_citations_in_the_lead_of_BLPs,_for_statements_that_have_been_challenged_or_are_likely_to_be_challenged. comment] which, in turn, links to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section/Archive_21#Necessity_of_citations_in_the_lead_of_BLPs,_for_statements_that_have_been_challenged_or_are_likely_to_be_challenged. DT talk page RfC]. The discussion seems to have ended there, without a change to the MOS section whose first and second paragraph seem contradictory to me but what do I know. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, LEADCITE sucks, which is the cause of much contention. Thanks for pointing me to these discussions. I'm only challenging the lack of citation. Cessaune   [ talk ]   12:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If it is that important to you to have a citation, add it. But not the one proposed above. Add this one, which says "unprecedented" right in the headline: It won't be necessary to add the whole reference, since it is already cited twice in the text; just add --Melanie

Donald Trump most recent change
(Moved from my talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, since you posed questions to me in this edit summary, I figured I should respond, but I figured I'd come here since I don't have a problem with your changes. I'm not sure I follow all of your critiques ... I'd say "five" tweets over the course of a few hours is "many"? And by "false theory" ... I meant ... just that. A theory which is false. I thought about saying "false conspiracy theory" but I figured that would attract some edit warring. Either way, I have no problem with those changes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! I saw most recent change seemed to pose a question to me in the edit summary (I was the author of the prior change, which was chiefly devoted to taking the unencyclopedic "complaining" out of the article); I didn't object to the changes, so I responded on Mr. Space's talk page—I figured this talk page didn't need a pointless section. But in light of this move ... maybe there's more discussion incoming? Either way—as far as I'm concerned, there's no action needed regarding the above.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

4000 legal actions
The second paragraph of the lead says he or his companies have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions. According to a reliable book on this general subject, “Statistically, the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, ranging from employment disputes to consumer injuries, copyright violations and contract performances.”*  I’d remove the “4,000” number from the lead because it’s devoid of such context, it doesn’t even hint that almost half of those 4,000 cases were in regards to Trump’s casinos, with the overwhelming majority of those lawsuits brought by Trump, rather than brought against him. Is there a single article at Wikipedia about any American business that gives the number of that company’s legal cases in the lead? If there is such a lead at Wikipedia (I doubt it) then let’s see if it provides some context instead of just a contextless number.

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noam, Eli. Media and Digital Management, p. 206 (Springer, 2019).


 * I ... think I agree? For some extra context for people chiming in here, the number stems from the really cool USA Today graphic story. My problem is ... I'm not sure what legitimate message is supposed to be taken from the 4000 suits line—especially given that, as @Anythingyouwant notes, the 4000 suits number combines suits in which Trump/Trump entities were the plaintiff with suits in which they were the defendant. That USA Today story also confirms that Close to half the court cases involving Trump and his businesses over the last three decades involved his casinos. About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts.
 * I'm not saying the number should be excised from the article, but why is it in the lead?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow up I would also lean towards thinking it's fine to note the source of a dominant plurality of the lawsuits, as Anythingyouwant did here (though I saw that was neverted on WP:DUE grounds). Wouldn't use that exact wording, but no need to nitpick on my end.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow up x2 Oh, I'm not sure I agree with the entire removal of the content from the article . I think more than one source actually reported on this, and it's probably due.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be okay with further sourcing and context. Such as mentioning what the biggest category of legal actions was (suits brought by his casinos).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry—I think I have to revert there. I was in favor of the additional sentence you added, but I think it was a fairly well documented fact that he had been involved in many lawsuits. See: Slate, the Guardian, BBC, CNN GQ. But I'm definitely open to reworking what's there to add some context.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example: “ As of April 2018, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today.[145] As of 2016, he or one of his companies had been the plaintiff in 1,900 cases and the defendant in 1,450. With Trump or his company as plaintiff, more than half the cases have been against gamblers at his casinos who had failed to pay off their debts. With Trump or his company as a defendant, the most common type of case involved personal injury cases at his hotels. In cases where there was a clear resolution, Trump's side won 451 times and lost 38.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly UNDUE detail for this bio article. He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source saying that? (Confession: I know nothing about the casino industry.) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. Here is a very lengthy article:. There are others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Though wait ... I might still be confused. So the contention is that Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement, right? Sorry, would you mind just pointing me to the section of the article that says that? (I'm sure it's there! It's just a long article—I'm mostly seeing reporting on how Trump borrowed at crazy high interest rates to build the casinos.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please read edits in context before responding with imagined reasoning and snarkiness. You asked for a source that said: He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't and I responded with an article exactly on point. Where did I contend that Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First, let's just chill with the tone. You don't need to say please three times. You know that. I thanked you for providing the link; you can be nice back.
 * Second, ironically, ... uh, the context. Yes, you didn't contend anything. SPECIFICO, in reaction Anythingyouwant's note that most of the lawsuits were related to Trump's pursuit of casino debtors, said such a note was undue because "He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't."
 * Either way, I'm sorry for the confusion! I clearly didn't articulate my question well enough. I was thinking of what we're discussing in this section, i.e. whether it's worth it to note the amount of claims in which Trump/his casinos were pursuing casino debtors.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I'm genuinely sorry if you sent a lot of time looking for that link. I can see how that would be frustrating. The reason I asked in the follow up message what the exact contention was ... was precisely because I realized we might not be on the same page. Regardless, we can get back to the article and the question at hand now.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Preliminary point: Is the "As of" not right? I just realized that the USA TODAY counter doesn't have a date that it was last updated. In the article right now, it says "As of 2016", but based on what you just posted ... it seems like that's wrong (your count says "as of 2016" and the total is in the 3000s, not 4000s. I'm going to excise that from the article.
 * I'm personally okay with most of that being added back? Although I have some concerns about the sourcing—where did we get the numbers? Just manual arithmetic with the USA Today page? I think it's best to avoid material that can date itself too easily. Either way, let's start with a "starting point" and field suggestions from there.
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here’s a link to the 2019 version I quoted above.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, this content belongs at The Trump Organization, and information about lawsuits should be limited to cases where Trump himself is personally involved, not commonplace hotel slip-and-fall cases or suits against deadbeat gamblers. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That would probably be the best way to handle this. Second best would be to explain what we’re talking about.  Worst would be status quo.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that argument, although a lot of people did seem to associate these lawsuits with Trump himself—after all, it's not like USA Today was just coincidentally looking into Trump enterprises in ... uh ... July 2016. Bit I also think the amount of attention I suggested above might be undue. What if we cut the last sentence, would that be a compromise that pleased everyone?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is,
 * (still a little awk)
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that, presumably, the other five "real estate scions" are probably not heavily involved with hotels and casinos, which generate more lawsuits than other types of real estate investments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point, so:
 * ? -- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the [1] should be at the end of the entire sentence.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The longstanding text was fine. Editors have spent years slimming this page to its summary style. It's not an improvement to add scattershot detail.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The longstanding text was fine. Editors have spent years slimming this page to its summary style. It's not an improvement to add scattershot detail.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't find my way through the jungle, responding to There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example. By May 2020, most of it was gone, and by October, all of it, and the website was at 498,000 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair! I'm a bit on the fence, to be honest, although I'd maintain that it probably shouldn't be in the lead. That said, Anythingyouwant and Cullen are suggesting additional context and (as I understand) saying they'd prefer the page without a reference to the 4,000 suits if it doesn't have that context. I don' think I'm with them there, but I'm at least open to the additional context, but I do understand you're saying you prefer the article as is.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it probably shouldn't be in the lead, and am sure Judge Frank would realistically concur. If it stays in the article body, it should be slimmed down from what it used to be, but not anorexic like it is now.  As of now, three editors have supported removing the “4000” stuff from the lead (Disciple, Cullen, and me), one opposed (SPECIFICO), and one who has not evidently opined about it (Objective3000).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have a COI as I know three lawyers and folks who have sued casinos, unrelated to gambling debts, and doubt the defendants are all related to such. No !vote. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's totally fair! (Can you get me a job? jk jk ... unless ...) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For us folks with a day-time job, it's a bit hard to keep up with this sudden influx of editors and edits. Why is it in the lead? Seems relevant, considering that Trump ran on his "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire" image. It's been in the lead with this exact wording ever since this edit on July 28, 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry I got rid of the "in the lead" segmentation because Anything's comment is touching on both.
 * In terms of the lead, I realize this is annoying, but can you spell out what the lawsuit number means in relation to Trump's "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire" image"? Like, you're saying it supports that image?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Back to discussion of text in body 

I am basically okay with the draft language for the article body but would tweak it a little: &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) is the current text and is the best among any proposed in this discussion. There's no reason to attribute to the RS that reported public record information and there's no reason to delete the modest number of bankruptcies or to get into the causes of the actions. This top-level bio provides links with all salient detail.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That language in the lead needs to be fixed, it’s misleading because the majority of the 4000 legal actions were routine stuff that lots of comparable businesses deal with, and also because he never had a personal bankruptcy. Consensus so far is to remove the “4,000” so I plan to do this: “Trump and his businesses have been involved in many state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies of his businesses”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. Is there such a thing as "consensus so far" after 18 hours? BTW, you also messed up the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Been down this road before, adding link to January discussion and copying my responses from that discussion: "According to USA Today, [t]he sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements, and he was involved in more lawsuits than five top real-estate business executives combined: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties. Due to the size of this article, I haven't added this USA Today article, used in the main article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, to the USA Today lawsuit tally we do use." "Do any RS say that lawsuits concerning the casinos don’t count? Operating casinos was one of his businesses, and extending credit to gamblers was a business decision — a bad bet, as indicated by the lawsuits and the bankruptcies. The House doesn’t win if the customers gamble with the House’s money, unless you’re the mob laundering money obtained elsewhere. Follow the link in the text to another USA Today article, Trump casino empire dogged by bad bets in Atlantic City, for more information." Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Question for the people proposing to change the wording: this thread starts off with a quote that the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces faces 556 lawsuits per year. So, where are the sources saying that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If a typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, such a company would accumulate 4000 lawsuits in less than 8 years. Trump accumulated 4000 lawsuits in 30 years, so why do we need to show that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues? In any event, regarding your revert of this edit to the article body, would you please state your objection here; although a link to past discussion is helpful, so would be a comment from you about this particular reverted language.  The language you reverted was this: "According to a report in USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions. The largest portion of those lawsuits, roughly 1,600 of them, related to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers." (footnotes omitted).  Why do you prefer a one-sentence paragraph that will suggest many different things to many different readers, such as that he's been sued 4000 times, he can't stay out of trouble, he's been in court way too much, etc etc?  The paragraph in question currently says, "Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is beyond absurd. If you are hoping that we will deprecate USA Today's reporting to the level of Fox News/NY Post, then you should make that argument explicitly at WP:RSNP. The content of this page has been discussed in detail by a large number of well-informed editors over a period of many years. The promotion, mismanagement, and failures of his far-flung empire (notably the casinos and other pre-Apprentice ventures) was and remains a subject of ongoing RS coverage and comment. It's just wasting our time to rehash that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

More questions: are there any sources saying that it is routine (or was routine back when Trump owned them) for other casinos suing gamblers they've extended credit to? Or any sources on casinos having to declare bankruptcy or file for Chapter 11 protection? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I answered your previous "Question for the people proposing to change the wording" and would prefer to resolve one question at a time, if you wouldn't mind telling me if that answer was satisfactory to you. Additionally, the proposed edit does not say anything about what's routine, nor does it say anything about bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is discussed later in the subsection of this article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article discusses the subject at the time all three Trump AC casinos were open. Casinos generally engaged in debt collection. They were loath to sue their best customers as bad gamblers continue gambling. There was a 1.3% loss in 1998 in AC, which was while Trump's three AC casinos were open. The point, as made by Space4Time3Continuum2x, is it's a business decision, and 1.3% is not bad. Credit card losses are worse. I might add that under NJ law, a casino is a financial institution. You can't even cash a cashier's check when the banks are closed. You can borrow money, as you can from a bank, after a credit check. A big difference between a credit card company and a casino is that a casino may not be paid for a loan; but the money is commonly spent at the casino, so they commonly still have the money. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, it was a business decision, these were not 4000 instances of sexual harassment suits, bankruptcies, and other stuff that looks bad for Trump, though we should (and do) describe the lawsuits that look bad for him. Why not give readers a clue about what the number 4000 indicates?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't discuss many of the lawsuits that looked bad for him. I'm not saying we should track them down and that would go in a sub-article anyhow. Just that we only touch the surface. As for the 4,096, we don't have much detail. Keep in mind that a suit about a bad casino debt may have been filed against the casino, like the Leonard Tose suit against the AC Sands. More common than one might think as rogue casinos can be sued for losses incurred by plying a gambler with alcohol. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This BLP properly discusses plenty of lawsuits that look bad for Trump and/or were controversial, such as: Trump sued “to intimidate the press” and Trump faced a “lawsuit that alleged housing discrimination” and Trump “was sued for violating the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses” and Trump sued “to prevent the disclosures” and Trump faced a lawsuit that alleged he “made false statements and defrauded consumers” and Trump faced a lawsuit that alleged he “defrauded or lied to its students” and Trump sued to “block release of his tax returns” and “78% of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation” and Trump joined a lawsuit to get a court to hold “the ACA unconstitutional” and his January 2017 executive order on immigration from Muslim countries “resulted in nationwide preliminary injunctions” and a judge ordered “family separations stopped” and “Trump and his allies filed many legal challenges to the [election] results” and a court “imposed a fine of $10,000 per day” and Trump “filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection”. If you have a COI as you stated above, maybe you should skip this discussion?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to bump off a witness?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no personal connection to Trump or his affairs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * NJ allowed credit cards to be used for the purchase of chips in 1993. Four of his casino bankruptcies occurred before then (three NJ casinos and the New York Plaza hotel). Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Struck typo.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. That was considered a cash advance from the CC company; not a loan by the casino. I remember the Plaza sale. Trump said he sold it to Prince Alwaleed, et al, for more than it was worth. But, Trump lost money on the sale. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * AGF. Anything is just suggesting adding a detail that's in the source that's currently cited.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with Good Faith. It has to do with editors recognizing when an argument fails to support its stated thesis. And it has to do with the amount of effort it takes for editors to explain issues that have already been thoroughly discusssed and archived, when the ONUS is on editors advocating a change to devote their own time and effort to a review of the archive, once it's been pointed out to them.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Accusing an editor of "weaponiz[ing]" Google searches for SYNTH is absolutely a GF and civility issue. I understand if you're frustrated by your perceived "ONUS", but the solution to frustration is to take a step back, not lash out.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions for input
Hello! Based on the above discussion, there are two questions regarding the lawsuits figure that's currently presented twice in the article. Currently, in the lead, the article says:

and, later, in the legal affairs section, the article says, in a single-sentence paragraph:

The source cited is this (admittedly awesome) USA Today graphic counter the really cool USA Today graphic story. There's no date on the counter (it's hard to tell if it's still updated), but USA Today also ran a story in 2016, when the graphic was first released, and the count was 3500 lawsuits.

has argued that the number, alone, is misleading, and suggests removing the number from the lead and adding context to the second mention. Specifically, Anythingyouwant thinks the 4000 number is misleading because it makes it appear that Trump or his entities were the target of 4000 lawsuits, when that's far from the case. According to the USA Today graphic, the 4000 number combines cases in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a plaintiff and in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a defendant. A plurality of the lawsuits—more than 1600—were actually lawsuits against Trump casinos' debtors. And, in cases that reached a conclusion, Trump or the Trump entity prevailed 451 times and lost 38 times. Absent at least some of that context, Anythingyouwant supports removal of the text from the article. So, the questions are:
 * Should the figure be in the lead?
 * What context, if any, should be added to the figure in the body?
 * Should the figure be removed in the absence of context?

Pinging editors already involved: : Hello! I'm segmenting off thissection so we can all say our peace in a single point, without getting trapped in reply chains, and so that other editors can chip in a bit more easily :)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Remove 4000 figure from lead (keep bankruptcy figure); add the casino-plaintiff number to the body; keep in body even without context. I do agree the 4000 number is misleading on its own—I mean, I work in law, and when I read it I still assumed he had been the target of 4000 lawsuits. I saw Space4Time3Continuum2x say the fact related to Trump's promotion of his image as a "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire". But, if anything, that comment made me more concerned. In reality, there's not an inherent connection between how often an entity is involved in lawsuits and whether that entity is well run: consider insurance corporations, which are named as defendants in thousands of suits—it's just the nature of their game. (And, of course, a well-run business initiates lawsuits all the time!) I'm okay with adding both the above figures (the casino-plaintiff number and the wins/losses number) to the article, but I'm torn about the wins/losses number because, based on my own knowledge, I think that figure is misleading (the problem is the selection bias in restricting the sample to cases with a clear outcome). But the casino-plaintiff figure is an additional piece of information that does provide more context to the 4000 number and concerns a huge percentage—40%!—of those lawsuits. Finally, I think we should keep the figure in the body even if the context isn't added, as the frequency with which Trump was involved with lawsuits was noted by several media entities. See: Slate,BBC, CNN, GQ.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove 4000 figure from lead (keep bankruptcy figure but clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies); add the casino-plaintiff number to the body. The “4,000” number in both the lead and the article body is factually correct, but it would also be factually correct to say in both places that he has an orange epidermis. We can do better.  In the article body, the subsection begins with a one-sentence paragraph, to emphasize the 4.000 number, but gives no clue about what the biggest part of that 4,000 cases involve: chasing down deadbeat gamblers and suing casino contractors.  Most readers will instead assume it involve alleged wrongdoing by Trump, just like virtually all the other cases mentioned in the BLP.  As for “4,000” in the lead, the number by itself is uninformative and potentially misleading, it’s much better for the lead to mention specific legal cases, if any, that were particularly notable.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also he didn't grow 4 arms. 4 personal bankruptcies, even for someone as old as Trump, would be difficult.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus
This BLP says: "According to a review of state and federal court files conducted by USA Today in 2018, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions.[116]" Do I understand correctly that the consensus is against saying whether his side was plaintiff more often than defendant in those cases discussed by USA Today in 2018? This 2018 report by USA Today adds up to 2121 as plaintiff versus 1929 as defendant. Also, is it correct that consensus is against saying what the largest chunk of cases was about (i.e. casinos suing deadbeat gamblers). And consensus is against saying his win percentage per the 2018 report? In short, consensus is for us to let readers make of the bare 4000 number whatever they will, without any explanation? Of course, saying Trump was more often the plaintiff, or that the biggest chunk was about deadbeat gamblers, or that he had a high win rate, would make Trump look a little better, is that why we have to omit such things and just present a virtually meaningless bare number in both the article body and the lead?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just a lead sentence. Readers can see more summary detail in the article section, and that section points them to our full page Legal affairs of Donald Trump where all the noteworthy detail is provided. So this sentence is a summary of a summary. It's brief, not POV.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it’s not a lead sentence. The blockquote above is from the article body.  And that’s what I’m talking about.  That’s what I’m asking about.  It has nothing to do with the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK same thing, however. The full detail article is prominently shown in a section link. Just as likely that 4000 lawsuits shows he's a "fighter" and Americans love a fighter. I don't see it as POV one way or another.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a statement in WP voice, it's attributed to USA Today, with the link to the USA Today article. A second sentence was removed in Sep 2020 (and, yay, it wasn't me who removed it), at a time when were reducing the size of the article from 500,000 to a more manageable 400,000 plus by banning excessive details to existing subpages like Legal affairs of Donald Trump. It was last discussed here.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we should not say "plaintiff more often than defendant" as I agree it is not WP:DUE. But I do think reasonable summary, clarification, and compromise says we should make clear the count is only cases where Trump or his company were Plaintiff or Defendant. People can be "involved" in lawsuits even as a witness or another third party. But this count per the USA Today article is only named parties. Meaning plaintiff or defendant. We could also say "named" such as "named in lawsuits" but I think that gives a connotation of being only a defendant, even if the strict legal definition includes both. So I have simply changed "involved" to "plaintiff or defendant". It only adds 14 bytes. Rv at will, as always. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm good with the "plaintiff or defendant" phrase! I would also agree "named" would suggest defendant—I work in law, and I haven't seen "named" ever be used to refer to plaintiffs—I think "named" comes from the plaintiff identifying (literally naming) defendants in a complaint (i.e. the document that, typically, starts a civil suit). I still think the casino number gives some important context, but I'm willing to ditch that as a compromise.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ohhh you may be right. Maybe I'm thinking of just 'parties'. But either way, I think we should just use whatever phrasing has the least confusion and most clarification, while still within the bounds of "summary" length. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was OK in the longstanding verson. "Witness" is not what's meant by "involved in legal actions" here or in the cited source. Moreover "plaintiff or defendant" are used to refer to bankruptcies which the text is "including". <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a decent point. I think bankruptcy filers are usually referred to as "petitioners" rather than plaintiffs. But ... I'm genuinely not sure whether the USA Today count is including bankruptcies—I would lean towards thinking that it does not. The count graphic does split every category of suit into whether Trump/his entity was the plaintiff or defendant, with no other options. But there's one discrepancy in the count: Every division adds up perfectly, except for the casino-related actions. We're told there are 1863 casino-related actions, Trump is listed as having been the plaintiff in 1679 of them and the defendant in 139 of them. But that leaves 45 cases unaccounted for. I'm not sure why that discrepancy exists, although bankruptcy cases wouldn't explain the error—we know Trump hasn't been involved in anywhere close to 45 bankruptcy cases. Given the available info, I would still include "plaintiff or defendant" in the article. If we take away those 45 cases (or, if you prefer, if we add up all the cases classified as plaintiff (2121) or defendant (1929)), we still have more than 4000 suits. In other words, the statement still passes WP:V.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump Plaza Hotel, Manhattan developments
My edit was reverted. The revert edit summary stated that "the sources on this prominently mention the amount" and that it is due. However, only one of the three sources mentions it. I removed the purchase price from the text because we don’t mention the amount due at the time of the bankruptcy, or that it was valued at $325 when it was sold in a complex transaction involving other Trump properties. IMO, none of the amounts are relevant for this top biography, so I again propose to remove it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source for the first sentence mentions that Trump bought the Plaza Hotel for $425 million in 1988.
 * The source for the second sentence on the prepackaged bankruptcy mentions the amount in debt at that time, "more than $550 million".
 * The source for the third sentence says that the purchase price in 1988 was "about 400" million.
 * If we're going to mention the Plaza purchase price, we need to continue with dollar figures in the narrative. I added some detail from the NYT source. If this remains in the article, somebody needs to add more precision to the current dollar conversion, which I believe is closer to $6 billion than the $5 billion returned by the template.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On further consideration and re-reading of that section, I think I agree that the dollar amounts are likely UNDUE here, given the range presented in the sources and the complexity of the deal, which we don't need to get into in this already bloated article. Initially, I found many sources which mention a dollar amount around 425, but you are right that there is wide variance, wider than we need to go into here. Better to leave it out. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I ran into the same problem Space mentioned: I saw the $425 million loan number in the article and tried to find a source for it because I noticed that it wasn't supported by either of the sources then in the article. But I was apprehensive about the number because I saw that a few sources said the purchase price was roughly $400 million, and, I figured, why would a $425 million loan be used to finance a $400 million purchase? One possibility is that the $425 million number was adjusted for inflation—the article I found to source it was written in 1992 when Trump refinanced the loan. According to this inflation calculator, $353 in 1988 would be equivalent to $425.61 in 1992. But, obviously, that's just speculation. One potential item  that might be worth mentioning is how much Trump ultimately lost when he sold Trump Plaza—Bloomberg says its as a $83 million loss, but I'm ambivalent on that.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Grammar fixes
@Space4Time3Continuum2x, other than the consensus item 40 concerns, what else in this edit do you find objectionable or otherwise not an improvement? I have restored the text outlined in consensus 40, particularly "he believes" wrt the exercise claim, as it needs to be attributed per NPOV and that consensus item.

What I'm posting about here is the grammar of "Much income was in tax credits for his losses, which let him avoid annual income tax payments or lowered them to $750. I think that's quite clearly in error. It should read "lower them to $750". The rest of those grammar/style edits I could take or leave. I am only posting about this as a BRD requirement, not to have a long discussion about it. I will happily abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you for any input. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, didn't notice changes below the golf sentence. I guess someone, unnoticed, already fiddled with the golf sentence before your edit. The following one, Forbes, was a recent edit of JF Disciple's. Income: if that was my edit I saw it in terms of "which ... lowered them to $750" (i.e., the IRS sets the rate) rather than "let him ... lower them to $750". Not gonna challenge that. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, I don't see an edit I made that's altered there (this is the article before I came to it—the "dropped him from the list" and "lowered" lines are both there), but either way I'm okay with the change! -- [[User:Jerome Frank Disciple|Jerome Frank Disciple] 16:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)