Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 172

Is it necessary to include he's a Teetotal?
Underneath the health section is it possible to include that he is a teetotal. He said in a recent interview and I found this article from the New York Times Serrwinner (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Undone. Biden is one as well. It is an unimportant piece of trivia. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, Biden is one, and it's also in his article and in more detail than what I inserted for this article. Maybe you should hop over there and remove it too.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That won't be necessary, I just did. The mention on Biden’s page was added to the "Early life" section on April 10, 2024, no reason given. The source was a post Mark Leibovich wrote in the NY Times "Caucus" blog in 2008, "Riding the Rails with Amtrak Joe". Leibovich cites Biden answering a reporter in the large pulk that started to accompany Biden after Obama picked him for VP. The reporter had asked Biden why he ordered cranberry juice.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unimportant. It's been a significant part of discussions and information about him for a long time. As to whether Biden has similar reasons for not drinking or doing drugs is entirely irrelevant in relationship to an article about Trump, because the article is about Trump, not about Biden, and the article is not a comparison of the two.  As to whether it's true or not?  I don't know.  We do know that Trump's Whitehouse had a lot of prescription medications being given out in recent reporting on the subject, but I don't know if we have any information on who this medication was given to or prescribed for. Centerone (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * that is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, betrays an overtly political perspective on editing. Riposte97 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not at all irrelevant, and your comment addresses nothing in what I said. Kindly refrain from pinging me if you have nothing to say, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no shortage of discussion about this in the archives. I see consensuses to include different specific content in 2018 and in 2021, but I haven't done exhaustive (and exhausting) research and didn't run across a later consensus to say nothing. I encourage someone to look deeper, someone who's better at that than I. Certainly, previous consensus should carry weight even if there is no item in the consensus list. This does not meet our traditional criteria for revisitation of a consensus: the situation has not changed, and there are no significant new arguments.Once we have determined what the existing consensus is, perhaps a consensus item would be in order to avoid spending further time on this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The article is more than three years old, and it says that both major party candidates abstaining from alcohol has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing, and Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump rarely discuss their non-drinking ways, much less present their abstinence as any kind of virtue. WP:WEIGHT applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that "hard-drinking culture of politics is changing" lends weight in a historical context. That it isn't a campaign topic does not mean much to a wiki-bio. Historical context does. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, there's Iamreallygoodatcheckers addition,
 * Trump is a teetotaler,[23][24]

which would have preceded this item that is currently in the article,
 * Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.[23] He believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[24]

which can be compared to the presentation of this item in the article,
 * In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of agreements, named Abraham Accords, between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.[376]

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the "Health habits" section in 2021. It was gradually reduced. The last time Trump’s claim of never having smoked or drunk alcohol was mentioned was on April 25, 2022. It was gone the next day, and this is the edit that removed it. I went through the archives until the end of 2022, didn’t find any discussion. Looks as though the general reaction was either "meh" or "good riddance" or both. We don’t actually know whether Trump ever drank alcohol or smoked. He was reported as saying that he never did, and we know the man has never uttered a lie in his life, though 30,000+ falsehoods during his presidency alone. It’s a trivial detail, and I oppose reinserting it. Also, remarkable how some of the editors who keep cutting content now want to add this. What’s next, his hair? We mentioned that, too, at one time. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivial Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Should obviously be included. The article even has a seperate health section --FMSky (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be mentioned. It's a rather unusual detail, and that makes it significant. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed that it is notable and should be mentioned, but rather than saying "Donald Trump is a teetotal", something like "Donald Trump has stated that he has never consumed alcohol" would be better. Pecopteris (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not unusual, according to the source cited by the OP: has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be included, per Valjean. Fred Trump Jr. died from alcoholism in 1981, fwiw soibangla (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undue and trivial. Unusual != significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The very term we're talking about ("teetotaler") is a near 200-year-old euphemism of Temperance societies. It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century. Beyond that, Donald Trump's life does not center on alcohol awareness or avoidance. He has proposed no legislation, advances no agenda, and does not regularly give lectures or speeches on abstinence. It is just a piece of trivia, on par with a favorite color or favorite food. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Zaathras, I agree about the term teetotaler, which is why I proposed a different wording. I disagree with your other statements.
 * Trump has also never proposed legislation, advanced an agenda, or regularly given lectures or speeches on the topic of bankruptcy. Ditto for multiple other topics that are covered in the article, so I don't think your criteria from inclusion stands up to scrutiny. He has discussed his choice to abstain from alcohol multiple times over the years, due to his family history, and if you want to really understand who the man is, that's one piece of the puzzle. I can see how adding it to the article would benefit our readers, but I cannot see how consciously excluding it benefits our readers at all. On the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Identify the most recent consensus in the archives. I believe this will be a consensus to include, and to include something very specific. 2. Re-implement that consensus. 3. Add an item to the consensus list to prevent this from happening again. 4. Move on to the next earth-shattering issue.The fact that people forgot about a consensus is not a valid reason to revisit it. A change in the editor mix is not a valid reason to revisit it. Process errors are to be corrected, even if discovered years later. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The section identified by SpaceTime above is the most recent in-depth discussion I could find. Riposte97 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good. Step 1 is completed, and discussion should cease at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion took place in February 2021 and didn't make it onto the consensus list. The BOLD edit in April 2022 wasn't challenged for two years, i.e., any reinsertion of the content now is another BOLD edit, according to you and NeilN. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus list is a convenience tool; it doesn't add strength to a consensus (people trying to make that so has been one of the objections to consensus lists, as we saw recently at AN; don't be that guy). And a consensus doesn't have to be in the list to count.Unless you claim that Feb21 was not a consensus, Apr22 was a process error. Process errors are never legitimate process, no matter how long it takes to discover them. So the de facto consensus argument doesn't hold water. Let's not compound one error with another. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Space4T - at this point the restoration is the process error, particularly the restoration of material other than drinking which is not addressed in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit here breaches the 24h BRD requirement - please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, I agree with Space4T may be asserting support that you don't have. He has not commented since my last, so it's just as likely he was swayed by my reasoning. Not that it matters, but I received explicit support from and a "thank" from .Your rationale appears to be that a process error ceases to be one if it is not detected for two years. That is a rationale I will never accept, since it means process is as flawed as the humans using it. Process errors must be correctable without a time limit.Had the Feb2021 consensus been in the consensus list, the Apr22 change would never have been accepted without a superseding consensus. The fact that nobody chose to add it to the list, while unfortunate in hindsight, changes nothing.As for revisiting the consensus, I would oppose that since I don't see that anything has changed except the editor mix. I have never thought that was a valid reason to revisit a consensus, since it allows consensus to swing back and forth with the wind, resulting in supersessions upon supersessions theoretically without end as editors come and go. There's no reason to believe that Group B's judgment is better than Group A's merely because it comes later. However, unlike the rest of this, that's just one editor's strong viewpoint. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to put forward an argument based on the inviolability of process, then it becomes even more necessary for you to self-revert. You made an edit and it was reverted; you cannot immediately restore it, as there isn't an exemption in the CTOP process for edits that you believe to be correct.


 * The existence of a previous discussion neither precludes any further edits nor requires that any such edits be reverted. These were not, establishing a new status quo. This quite simply is not a process error at all - this is how Wikipedia works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. BOLD edits against documented consensus are not allowed, never have been allowed, never will be allowed. The fact that it was missed in Apr22 is completely irrelevant. This is not something subject to consensus, and it certainly is NOT how Wikipedia works. As I said here, you are free to argue that the situation surrounding the Feb21 consensus has changed. You have yet to argue that, let alone get consensus for it. You are not free to trample process because it gets in your way. This can go to AE if necessary, and, if they ruled against me, it might be a good time for my full retirement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What are you basing your assertions here on? I don't see anything in the CTOP provision to support your edit, nor anything in policy that agrees with the assertions you've made in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am basing my assertions on nine years of widely, almost universally accepted practice at this article. At least one admin actively participates here, other admins have in the past (MelanieN, NeilN, etc.) and no doubt more than a few others pay enough attention to know what's been going on for nine years. To my knowledge, none&mdash;zero&mdash;have voiced any objection to how things have been done here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "How things have been done here" is not a policy that you can require others to follow, particularly not when it contradicts actual written rules - and particularly not if you want it to be "not something subject to consensus". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * BOLD invites editors to be bold in editing articles; it doesn't include a limitation of "unless the section has ever been discussed". That's because Wikipedia evolves over time, and so does consensus. The fact that something was discussed years ago doesn't outweigh the fact that a different version was in place for years after that. And it definitely doesn't justify contravening CTOP requirements. That is the process error here, and I'd ask again that you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again that you Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. The fact that you haven't done so after my challenge strongly suggests that you can't because no such policy exists. You're demanding policy from me while refusing to offer any yourself, not a good look. I'll decline your request for self-revert in the article and counter with a request to self-revert in the consensus list. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've pointed you to BOLD, where you can plainly see that the hard-and-fast limits you've proposed don't exist. That's more than you've put forward to support your position.


 * The 2021 discussion was superseded by a subsequent version unchallenged for years, so at this point adding the 2021 discussion to the consensus list would be inappropriate.


 * On the other hand, CTOP does have a hard-and-fast rule: "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message." You'll note there's no reference there to exceptions based on the basis for the edit. This edit was a process error even if every other word you've posted here were correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now read BOLD from top to bottom. I see nothing saying or implying that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. It does say: "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes [...]"&mdash;and that's without an existing consensus in place. Sorry, but it's insufficient to throw shortcuts around and tie your own interpretations to them. That is a newbie mistake unworthy of you. But it appears we're at an impasse pending other participation. I'd be interested to hear from admin, for one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, for as long as I can remember, there was some small print at the bottom of the American Politics template listing the "discretionary sanctions" for this page. That small print had some exceptions to the 1RR, Consensus Required, and later BRD rules that allowed reverting things like vandalism and edits that went against an explicit consensus. I think the consensus list at the top of this page became a thing because of that exemption. But I don't know if those exemptions made it through ArbCom's more recent rewrite of DS/contentious topic restrictions. I checked the template at the top of this page, and I don't see the exemptions anymore. I haven't been tracking things very closely for the past couple of years, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about recent meta here. ~Awilley (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this phrase at the top of the consensus list: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting.... That phrase has been unchanged and unchallenged since it was added in December 2016, showing that it's routine to revert a BOLD edit against an existing consensus. Exactly that has been done without objection hundreds or thousands of times; it could not possibly be any more accepted. Since a list item adds no special status to a consensus, my revert per the unlisted Feb21 consensus was no different and no less legitimate. That leaves you with nothing but a dubious claim about a 24-hr BRD vio&mdash;I don't think that applies in this situation, and it seems like wikilawyering at best&mdash;but I'd be happy to join you at AE if you want to press the point. Anything further between you and me would likely be circular and repetitive, so let's see if we can avoid that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the rest of that comment for the moment, why do you believe CTOP does not apply to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to your premise that I do. I don't recall seeing anyone taken to AE for enforcing well-established process too aggressively, let alone successfully. I'm prepared to be the first. As I suggested, I don't need Wikipedia&mdash;and Wikipedia certainly does not need me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You assert that "I don't think that [CTOP] applies in this situation". Is the basis for this assertion simply that you haven't seen it enforced, or do you have a rationale for why it actually doesn't apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just checked Mandruss's edits and I can't see the alleged BRD violation. I see one revert followed immediately by a talk page post, then another revert more than 24 hours later, with both reverts pointing to a past discussion. That seems, to me, to be within the letter and the spirit of the BRD rule. In any case, I think it may be best to just move forward from here. It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. ~Awilley (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. Sure, as long as it's understood that the consensus content will be retained/restored if there is no consensus to change it here. My way seems more straightforward and less likely to be abused because the process has been muddied (editors supporting "status quo" without understanding the history of the issue), but the end result would be the same if it's handled correctly. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Should the discussion end with no consensus the preceding status quo prevails. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as strong disagreement with what I said. "Absolutely not" sort of implies you have some authority in the matter. As I've said previously, process errors must be correctable without a time limit. There is little question that the "preceding status quo" was a process error. I don't think even you dispute that. Or do you? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert. While I appreciate you would prefer that someone had, the fact that no one did is not an error, and does not support ignoring the consensus arrived at through editing since the last discussion. Nor does it change the result of a no-consensus outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've said previously, the Apr22 change would've been immediately reverted&mdash;as a process error&mdash;had the Feb21 consensus been in the list. I don't think even you would've objected to that revert. Or would you? Your logic that it stopped being a process error because it wasn't detected for two years just does not hold water. I will accept that logic when you point to PAG language to the effect: "Process errors cease being process errors if not detected for years." Until then, this is nothing more than your opinion, so please stop claiming policy support for it. I'm very sorry this situation is not addressed in PAGs one way or the other; absent that, we are left to what actually makes sense. It does not make sense to give content (or removal/absence of content) legitimacy because it slipped through the cracks due to human error.For a recent precedent, you can refer to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167, where consensus item 5 was found to be in error (not an accurate summary of the underlying discussions) ~six years late. Instead of changing the item to reflect longstanding article content, we changed it to reflect the discussions without objection. Now the article content, the consensus item, and the discussions are all in alignment, as it should always be. So correct process, NOT article content, is the primary arbiter around here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What you're describing as my logic is not my logic at all. The Apr22 change could have been reverted then. It was not required to be reverted, then or now. That something that was not required did not happen is not an error, then or now. To assert that it requires reverting back to a years-old discussion and ignoring everything that's transpired since then is not "what actually makes sense". And even that pales in comparison to your last assertion. One of the fundamental principles upon which Wikipedia is based is that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Not "if article content gets in the way of correct process, ignore it". That assertion is incompatible with what we're all meant to be doing here, and any argument based on it "just does not hold water". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, your views are incompatible with nine years of practice at this article, and that practice is not going to change until there is widespread editor support to change it or there is an ArbCom dictate to change it. Here, a talk page consensus is in effect until cancelled or superseded by subsequent talk page consensus, even if that's five years or fifty. We do not allow attempts to supersede talk page consensus by BOLD editing (hence all the "DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENSUS PER CONSENSUS X" hidden comments in the article). It is pointless for us to continue arguing about it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Be extremely careful with any argument based on WP:IAR in a contentious article. Consensus is hard fought in these articles requiring huge amounts of editor time. If text has existed for a lengthy period, it is disruptive to boldly change it. Gain consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless it has existed (or not existed) clearly out of process. In that case we don't need consensus to change it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me your options are:
 * Grudgingly adapt to how we do things here, like everybody else. None of us get the Wikipedia we want. This is my preference since I think someone with your experience could be a valuable contributor here.
 * Try to get widespread editor support for a change.
 * Try to get ArbCom to issue a dictate for a change. If you're as obviously right as you think you are, that shouldn't be too difficult.
 * Find an article more to your liking.
 * That's a lot of options. Not an option:
 * Continue to argue about this, loudly and at great length, every time it comes up, which will be fairly often. That would likely be seen as disruption. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that 24-hr BRD applies in this situation. Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP. I honestly doubt the community means for 24-hr BRD to apply to process enforcement. It's about content issues, maybe sometimes fuzzy process issues, but never in my experience clear process issues. When EditorB reverts EditorA per an existing consensus, and EditorA re-reverts, EditorA will be re-re-reverted and will end up at AE if they persist (which has virtually never happened). As I indicated, I've yet to see EditorB go to the talk page to discuss their revert, let alone taken to AE with a 24-hr BRD vio complaint. If EditorB's revert was correct, no discussion or 24-hr wait is required. Very little at Wikipedia is so absolute, nor would we want it to be. That's just how it has to be until there is an independent Wikipedia police force.And you're still wielding acronyms without pointing to specific language; where is it written that our nine years of actual practice has been wrong? Please stop doing that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You provided that answer yourself, with your claim that "Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP". You're preferencing your interpretation of common practice at the page, which is apparently documented nowhere, over documented, site-wide procedure. What's more, you're doing it to defend an action that is not common practice at this page or anywhere else that I'm aware of - to revert to a years-old discussion version when a different version was accepted and remained stable for years in the interim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's just as significant as him playing golf as exercise or the battery thing. It adds 4 words to the article. I mean it's whatever I guess 🤷  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd object to "teetotaler", too, and the sources only have Trump's word for it, so we'd have to attribute the info to him. Meanwhile his golfing habit is extremely visible, and "the battery thing" along with his habit of not exercising has been reported by numerous sources as outlandishly weird (in Kranish/Fisher and O'Donnell (works cited), I'll have to check other books on Trump; New Yorker, CNN, Vox. People abstaining from alcohol isn't unusual these days. On the other hand: "a relaxing glass of schnapps might have kept him out of Poland " in NATO?  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century" It's mentioned in other articles like Warren Buffett and Cristiano Ronaldo though, and I'm sure others too. Serrwinner (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Step 2 completed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done. Thanks for restoring that consensus version. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Step 3 completed. Step 4 is up to individual editors and beyond my control. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump series template
Per talk on Joe Biden's page, should this template be removed from this page? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why. If the template doesn't have a place in the top-level Trump article, we might as well delete it. Is there another way to easily locate all Trump articles organized by subtopic area? If so, I'm not aware of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've since understood the importance of these series articles. Especially true in Trump's case as there's so many articles about him. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Specific proposed wording for moderately expanded lede
During the RFC about the potential use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence, there was talk of mentioning his conviction in the second sentence. In the course of this discussion, I wrote up a draft of how the first paragraph might look with this change, which a few people liked as a starting point — one even suggested starting a new RfC with my proposal. I don't want to open that can of worms unless there's demand for it, but I do at least want to put it here to get people's thoughts, rather than leaving it mired in the previous RFC. In its original wording, it read:


 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, as well as being the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

Thinking more about it, and reading the section above where Cessaune mentioned the same idea, I might revise my initial draft to:


 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and his status as the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

The proposal would be to change the first paragraph to include this sentence or something like it, while leaving the rest of the lead section as it is.

This is still a rough draft, but is it worth exploring? Or should this discussion be laid to rest for the time being?

Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support the structure, particularly the first version. I would support "convicted on felony crimes," not just a crime, which is highly notable. Overturning the 2020 election is already in the lead in more detail. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support / Comment - despite my highlighting of a potentially-incompatible alternative below, I still think these quickly hit the important points and bring it more into what is a de facto standard form for all POTUS articles I've compared.
 * Also you've done a probably better (and probably adequate for this moment of history) job of touching on something I struggled to cleanly articulate when I was writing my long-winded version back on the 31st.
 * Which is: does "A member of the Republican party' communicate a fact clearly (at least in the same way it does when party affiliation is brought up early in other articles).
 * Because like … look at the state of Sixth Party System (with a `- 2016?` in the infobox and everything). It seems at once clearly accurate to say that he is a member (and indeed leader) of the Republican Party as it exists today (and at least for the next 5 months, and if he wins one presumes ~4 years); but I'm less clear that its meaningfully accurate to say the same (that he was a member) of the party from which he was elevated to the presidency. And its too early to know whether this is official-names-of-organizations-lagging a durable schism that has already happened  (akin to equating the modern Democratic Party to the  Democratic-Republicans )
 * anyway,
 * Donald Guy (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
I would like to edit several biased parts of this Wikipedia page, which is people's opinions, and has no proper backing to support those claims. I would like to request these claims to be made clear that they are claims, instead of presented as facts, as Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information for people to go to for information, and placing bias into it only serve to discredit the accuracy of Wikipedia, as is already the case. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Also see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Early inlining of extant relevant main article links (or "Compact disambiguation as lede")
Hello, I was checking back in on what if anything had been elaborated on with my expansion proposal from the 31st (and managed to spend quite a while looking for where it got lost in history before archiving before realizing it was still actively on here 😅) [It's above my pay volunteer-grade to make such a call, but it doesn't look like its trending towards consensus, and I see the valid arguments against (textual) expansion via consensus process.]

(But/therefore) I wanted to bubble up / highlight as separable and tighter scoped for specific consideration the last point(s) I made on the 31st:

— attempting to respond specifically to 's point ~ To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, — I said

"query then also (and whether it hasn't been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective… keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

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

…"

[I then also gave a more dramatic restructured-as-not-prose alternative, but that is a much WP:BOLDer move for a contested article than adding links to existing articles to existing wording).]

So consider this potentially a concrete proposal;

but perhaps first a point of order from a less-than-expert editor as to if, in fact, there is existing specific policy/style opposing use of such an approach for a multi-faceted subject that pre-empts serious consideration

Thanks, Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Acknowledgment of argument in the alternative I also (still) equally-to-stronger support the similar-but-more-concise-than-my-proposal approach being looked at two sections up,
 * but despite all the anchored words being retained in that, I'm not fully sure that and this are practically compatible: as that probably amounts to a more decisive editorial decision to singularly center his presidency - whereas this would be, to my mind, trying to improve relevant-info-accessibility for visitors to the article researching the man for "any of his 3 careers"
 * and like … as a proposal now and 2 weeks ago, it kinda amounts to an attempt to practically improve-as-a-tool-for-navigation what I think is something of a … Nash equilibrium of a compromise as, per se, a lede. Donald Guy (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be a bit woozy from lack of sleep, but huh? And why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one is still open? Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * > Why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one is still opoen?
 * Like I said in, I spent an embarrassing amount of time before writing this thinking that discussion had already been archived (or had been errantly deleted instead when I failed to find it in the archive), so maybe remained captured in that perspective.
 * And/but that seems just on the cusp of auto-archiving without any sort of resolution, so I wanted to pull this somewhat separable proposal out before it got lost. But It's very possible that was either premature or a bad cal
 * > Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence.
 * I wanted to clarify whether this sort of thing was actually against policy or just uncommon.
 * That (MOS:EGGs) is a valid referent/citation (but not one I was familiar with before, per se).
 * Reasonable minds may differ; Personally, While, I freely acknowledge that the links are not to the articles for the broadest refrants of the terms, I personally would never expect them to resolve that way in this context.
 * I know this because I did/do find the link to POTUS there itself pretty confusing. I'll admit that I wouldn't necessarily a priori think of Presidency of Donald Trump as the target of that link instead, but only because I was unaware keeping articles on a presidency separate from the president was established practice. Now that I do know that, that is my adjusted expectation. (nevertheless I did seek to clarify this in that case by shifting from "45th president of the United States" to " 45th president of the United States")
 * And I think that follows clear enough for "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" as well; but I don't suggest no one could be confused.
 * I'd suggest any frustration experienced there could substantially be ameliorated by making sure those targets carry themselves an early link to the Donald Trump independent concept in their respective ledes to facilitate rapid movement from the specific to general if that _was_ what was wanted.
 * _But_ if that is a definite no-no then I return to my second referenced but not quoted more dramatic suggestion, the possibility of treating the multi-hyphenate subject as worthy of personal disambiguation to these main articles (if not in/as the lede than perhaps as a hatnote?
 * or a novel kind of  alike. (cf. Template:Citation_needed, but perhaps like [main article] or [focus] or [more info] )
 * > huh?
 * At core is my frustration that so much accessible information is left on the table as is.
 * If the outcome of NPOV-and-consensus process applied to the lede is to refuse to characterize the man as primarily any one role from his life (on the basis of recency or relative-notability-as-practiced-by-others), then it seems to follow to me, for consistency of application of that editorial stance, that further efforts could and should be taken to offer the ways those are already broken out (either the main articles, again all of which already independently pre-exist; or skipping ahead to the relevant section of this article)
 * but anyway, I am probably overdue to stop having opinions about this article in particular and perhaps should go be of use elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * but anyway, I am probably overdue to stop having opinions about this article in particular and perhaps should go be of use elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The editing suggestion is, frankly, not good. MOS:EGG is a valid concern here. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Use the wide name!
The name Donald J. Trump is widely used in official documents, social media and newspapers. Please stop insisting on the original name. 81.214.81.191 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by wp:commonname. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See current consensus item 12. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand our WP guidelines. Please, take a look at WP:COMMONNAME and the WP Manual of Style. Donald Trump without the middle initial is still by far the most commonly used name. I'm pretty sure that Michael R. Pence does not qualify as WP:COMMONNAME, either, your [editsum] in that case being Pence's Vice Presidential title is that. In other articles we can say "Mike Pence" but we have to use Vice Presidential Title (Michael R. Pence) in describing as Vice President and Donald J. Trump's running mate. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?)
While looking across Andrew Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in service of writing my comment in discussion above,

it is clear that regardless of the outcome of conviction-specific conversations, the first paragraph here is cut significantly down from typical of U.S. Presidents, most of whom have less notability in other fields

I know (from the "current consensus" box) that several points (of specific inclusion & exclusion) have been the topic of several discussions already in the last few years, but the result seems to have been progressive minimalism, whereas it seems to me there are several useful points for inclusion that fall within precedents and NPOV.

I would propose that what currently reads:

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

would be more in line with other presidents if it read something like:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and who is currently seeking a second term. Elected as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is also understood as leading his own political movement within & beyond the party. . As reflected in slogans popularized by and strongly associated with him, he has advocated an open embrace (and implemented policies consistent with) both nationalist ('America First') and reactionary ('Make America Great Again') approaches to American politics; there has been much more divergence surrounding corruption: with many perceiving him as opposing it (as 'the Swamp', 'the Deep State', and  'the Steal') while he has also been  investigated,  impeached,  indicted, and in one case  convicted of crimes while seeking, performing, and departing the presidency."

... you know, or something like that. thoughts? Donald Guy (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support* as these are all objectively factual statements.
 * Redditmerc (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your version is a significant improvement compared to the current one. Besides some minor grammatical issues, it looks good. Opportunity Rover (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support this lead-for-the-lead approach, not sure on what should be included therein (AMPOL is not my forte, although I follow it closely). A one-sentence opening paragraph is extremely unusual for someone this notable, and unencyclopaedic too.


 * I think your proposal starts out strong with the first two sentences, but gives too much detail thereafter, which more properly belongs in later paragraphs of the lead. I would suggest something like [Your first two sentences, and then-] As president of the Trump Organization, he was involved in numerous real estate developments in New York City for a number of years, with mixed success. As US President, he implemented several conservative and economically protectionist policies, while also assailing mainstream media for its perceived bias against him. He is the only US President to have been impeached twice by the House of Representatives and to have been convicted of felonies. And then continue with the rest of the lead as is. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It may be a good idea to discuss this after the RfC. We can't have too much going on at once.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, expanding the first paragraph will cater to both parts of emerging consensus - that it is necessary to prominently mention the conviction in the lead, and that at the same time adding the conviction to the frail one-sentence lead we have right now will fall afoul of DUE. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is this way because of years of consensus and discussion and it won't be changing over night, and I don't expect there to be agreement on the wording. The more wording you propose the less likely consensus will be met, especially on this article. To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, which is why we have the bloated lead section and the simple, non-controversial first sentence and paragraph. But sure, I'm open to expansion, but I really do think it would be best to see the completion of the RfC first so that its consensus may be a guiding tool and onus here. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I hope the two suggestions in this thread can serve as a base for fresh discussion after the RfC.
 * As an aside, is it time for the talk page to be temporarily semi-protected? None of the IPs and fresh accounts are adding anything of substance. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 05:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a decision for me to make, but I've seen some substantive contributions from IP's here and, naturally, some not. Hopefully, the closer of the RfC, who should be an experienced one, can cipher the good from the bad. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 06:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * query then also (and whether it hasn been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective:
 * keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician,  media personality, and  businessman who served as  the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
 * forgo traditional structure for a lede and either ("simply" front-load the table of contents instead, or admit some sort of disambiguation-like un-prosed structure, e.g.
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American variously notable in his capacities as:
 * a politician — having served as the the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, currently seeking re-election to presidency, as well as competing in presidential primaries in 2000 and public ally
 * a media personality — having co-produces and hosted The Apprentice, participated in professional wrestling, and appeared (as himself) in various film & television projects
 * a businessman — overseeing the Trump Organization in developing & managing various real estate holdings, as well as developing numerous lines of personally branded merchandise
 * [pending ongoing discussions] a litigant and criminal defendant
 * Donald Guy (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, if the RFC above comes out as adding convicted felon/criminal you'd have a section for that too and it's even more called out. It might be better to have just the table of contents where you can have the category simply labeled "Civil and Criminal something something". Outcast95 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The table of contents does not show up for mobile users, who are a significant portion of our readers. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, then I have to go back to thinking it's appropriate for the current single sentence lede. But a paragraph lede including it would be the most appropriate thing. Outcast95 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * yes, despite where I ended up on that abivr draft I mostly agree that it probably shouldn't necessarily actually focus exclusively on his presidency (though focus of two sentences doesnt seem unresonable)
 * I kinda think The Apprentice may still deserve some mention as well. and like I think there is a viable NPOV through line here but I can't quite put my finger on it
 * like...
 * "pursuing a strategy of personal branding and celebrity, Trump succesfully grew in recognizability from real estate developer, to figure of NYC tabloid coverage, to household name of film & television, to leader of a political movement and the first person elected to presidency of the united states without prior political or military office. Concerted attempts to control image and narratives have also seen him run well afoul of the law, notably becoming also the first president convinced of a felony: 34 counts of falsification of business records in the state of New York in the commission of another crime"
 * that's not necessarily better... but it's differently bad at least 😅 Donald Guy (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. And if you don't present reliable sources, it doesn't go in the body, either. Are there RS e.g. for "leading his own political movement within & beyond the party", "reflected in slogans", etc.? Also, the first paragraph is currently under discussion in the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Just talking, there's definitely sources on the MAGA movement. As to that movement being "both nationalist and reactionary approaches to American politics"? That's gonna be another RFC, with sources on both sides. But also, do we take those kinds of subjective stances? It's objectively true he's leading a movement, but you'd be hard pressed to objectively determine the other stuff without Wikipedia taking a meta political science position. Sorry for the motormouth, but I do a lot more politics than I do wiki editing. Outcast95 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support For making the sentence an actual lede paragraph. That seems to be at least part of the problem in the discussion above. But I would hold back on some of that wording. The third sentence specifically is doing a lot of work and could be hard to support in a wiki article let alone a lede. I would suggest something like -

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is known for his real estate business and he starred on The Apprentice from 2004-2017. He is currently the 2024 Republican leading candidate and expected nominee. He is also the first American President to be convicted on felony charges."

note - I suck at the actual writing part, so this is just a rough example. Outcast95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I like Wilhelm's above example of what this would like like, in practice I could easily see the introduction of such a paragraph to be mired by multiple RFCs like the one we see above on every little detail. While I don't love the one-sentence opening paragraph, keeping the lead in chronological order helps to prevent a lot of time-wasting battles over what is more notable than what. Yeoutie (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't an RFC naturally a moot point after we have a consensus though? Also, we're going to have RFC's for quite a while on the conviction thing anyways. I'm not against sorting the lede chronologically. It would look hilarious, since his being president is obviously the most important bit. But right now the chronological paragraph that is the first actual paragraph is the normal second paragraph of a bio on Wikipedia; talking about his birth and college. That breaks with the other pages on US presidents. If we did a lede in hybrid I think it could work well. So the sentence subjects in order would be Presidency; Businessman; Media Personality; Criminal Conviction. So something more like-
 * "Donald Trump served as the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential campaign. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the Covid 19 Pandemic. Donald Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31st 2024 he became the first US President to be convicted of felony charges." Outcast95 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It helps if such proposals don't get far without appropriate copy edits. If they ultimately become consensus, then we're faced with the question of how much we can copy edit without violating the consensus. If you change it, the article content no longer matches what was agreed to. That's a headache. As we saw recently, an editor couldn't even remove an Oxford comma without violating consensus 50.
 * "Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll support this version. DN (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now changed "campaign" to "election". Just in case that changes your support. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a very neutral account for the lead. I support the changes suggested. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am definitely not a copy editor. I'm just trying to suggest a good neutral lede that could stand for at least the next few months without adjustment. And have that lede be in line with other articles for US Presidents. Outcast95 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support this wording, which covers the most important points in a neutral fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please let's refrain from changing the first sentence with this. C 50 is contentious as it is and there is an discussion to change it.
 * Removed mention of family business and apprentice. Those are already alluded to in the agreed upon first sentence and need no further expansion. Manual of Style/Lead section states that leads should be concise, not wordy. Revised lead below:
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.
 * Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any expansion, if anything we need to tighten the lede in general. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You want to tighten a lede that’s one-sentence long? Opportunity Rover (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -- The existing single sentence is all that needs to be in the first paragraph. All of these other points should be covered chronologically in the rest of the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Fake News Strikes Again
If Wikipedia wanted to be known for honest,and fact based news and documentation they would stop being so biased. This article on Donald J. Trump is so full of Untruths and shows exactly where Wikipedia stands, politically and morally. 2601:40D:681:7750:443E:D3E1:57FE:28CF (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump and Roe v. Wade
This sentence had been added in the lead section of the article but a user removed it. Do you agree with adding this in the lead section of the article?

«He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court; they were crucial in overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to abortion.» Esterau16 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong in the lead section, IMHO. Also, Trump nominated them for the Supreme Court. By saying he appointed them, it suggests they didn't need US Senate confirmation. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it does not belong in the lead. It's not an unimportant detail and is included in the body, but does not belong in the lead section which is supposed to be very concise. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not important enough for the lead. Can be mentioned in the body like most other controversies and events. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, we could say that he nominated three justices, which is unusual, but I think giving the names of all three is a bit too much detail for the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 3J is OK for lead Highly unusual 3 appointments, highly consequential shift of court, and a key 2016 campaign promise fulfilled. Roe and justices' names do not need to be in lead. Better to trim trivia like college, renaming Trump Org, etc.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can name the justices, but shouldn't mention Roe or other cases. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Name appointments, exclude Dobbs v. Jackson W.H.O., though it can go in the "Judiciary" section of the presidency. Roe was overturned during Biden's presidency by Trump's justices + Thomas & Alito, not Trump himself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dig at anyone - but we don't always need bolded !votes, and it encourages people to not engage in more substantial discussion in my opinion. I agree that the justices he appointed are completely due for the body, and the fact he appointed 3 justices may be due for the lead. There is zero reason any of SCOTUS' decisions that they made after his appointment(s) should be included here. To do so is to trivialize SCOTUS and to try and predict what would've happened without or with different appointments by Trump. Overall I haven't seen much persuasive reasoning why the names of the justices themselves are important for the lead, but I'm also not really opposed to them being included as they all have their own articles that provide context. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should name the justices.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should name the appointees. Three justices in four years in atypical (recall that Carter made no appointments to the Supreme Court). I would not specifically name the overturning of Roe. I might say instead that Trump's appointments shifted the direction of the Court. Neutralitytalk 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DN (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Trump v. Anderson from '2024 Presidential Campaign'
I reverted prior edits removing Trump v. Anderson from the '2024 Presidential Campaign' subheading as there was no consensus to remove it. No consensus was given in its removal resulting from this discussion post. Removal of such was done on the basis of an off-handed comment despite prior consensus having already been reached to retain it. No further support for removal was mentioned by anyone other than the petitioner. Petition for its removal can be done here to develop consensus as, WP:NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." LosPajaros (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * additional contention for removal as seen in this discussion also did not provide any consensus for removal of it. LosPajaros (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Bias.
Your editors can keep claiming there is no bias in this article but for those of us living in the objective reality, it's as clear as day to anyone with a functional cerebral cortex that this article is riddled with democrat talking points, opinions, and deductions rather than actual sources. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

article bias
As someone impartial to the politics of the USA, reading through entries of the individual presidents is very disorienting. These writers seem to have a heavy bias against Trump, where in the introductory section, most others recount the president’s actions during their term, this article seems to almost exclusively mention negative things. In comparison, what I’ve seen on social media currently is the public heavily questioning Joe Biden’s mental faculties, yet the only mention of that entire subject is one line in an almost euphemistic way. 133.159.123.180 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are more negative things about Trump (proportionally) than these other presidents? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition to the lead
I have been asked to create a talk discussion here regarding mentioning this person is a fraudster in the lead sentence. This is necessary for it is consistent with primary articles. Eg. on the Andrew Wakefield article, due to his criminal conviction of medical fraud he is listed as a fraudster explicitly in the lead; the same should apply on this article (as this person has been criminally convicted of fraud). Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is not how we describe people in BLP articles. If anything, what you have done is point out that this Andrew Wakefield article is problematic and likely needs its lede sentence toned down. Zaathras (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be so considering there are in fact many similar articles which follow this convention unanimously, referenced in the previous discussion as I recall. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To use your example, Wakefield would not have a Wikipedia article if it was not for his fraud. Trump did have one long before he was convicted of fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wakefield I imagine might have had the article prior to his conviction of fraud since that occurred following quite some time after his controversial takes and study publication.
 * Regardless, on the contrary, selectively excluding negative information in the lead may be unethical. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We just had a very similar discussion around this, and there was no consensus to alter the lead sentence. It's worth pointing out that his conviction is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
Change "An assassination attempt was made on Trump at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024." to "An assassination attempt was made on Trump at a campaign rally on July 13, 2024." 207.96.32.81 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * should be cited too
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/donald-trump-rushed-off-stage-secret-service-rally/74396110007/
 * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/13/sound-gunshots-sparks-chaos-trump-rally-pennsylvan/
 * https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✔️ Mgasparin (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed as an attempted assasiation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been confirmed as such. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was still being investigated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (2)
Add “convicted felon” to the summary at the top of his biography. 2600:1001:B040:C7CA:D0C1:1CB6:71F6:8241 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 (3)
Change "One person was killed in the incident." (in subsection "2024 presidential campaign" under "Post-presidency (2021–present)") to "Two people, including the perpetrator, were killed in the incident." RidgelantRL (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence has already been changed. Mgasparin (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024
The section regarding Trump's 2024 campaign states that he was shot in his right earlobe. This is incorrect, it was the top of his ear. Carson6f (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * fixed --FMSky (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Trump to Donald Trump page.
As Trump is widely known for Donald Trump. It should be redirect to this page. Loveforwiki (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Its also known for other things, Oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. He is, very clearly, the primary target of anyone searching “Trump”, per WP:DPT. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's known for four dozen things. If you're saying remove the disambiguation page, oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “Trump” as a search term should redirect to Donald Trump. A hatnote at the top of this page should lead to the disambiguation page. It’s standard procedure. Cessaune   [ talk ]   19:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NWFCTM, and the move was repeatedly discussed and declined on the talk page of the Trump disambiguation page, according to Talk:Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not about what first comes to mind. It’s about what first comes up when you search. “Trump” as a search term overwhelmingly brings up Donald Trump. Per DPT I don’t see how “Trump” shouldn’t redirect to this page. Cessaune   [ talk ]   19:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The number of people who search 'trump' hoping for the card game must be...modest. Riposte97 (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After reading the discussion I feel there is some merit in the recentism argument, but redirects are cheap and Donald Trump is still the clear primary topic of a Trump search. If/when he isn't some future person can revert it back to the disambiguation page. Cessaune   [ talk ]   06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: If "Trump" redirects to the disambiguation page, why does "Biden" not do the same? The Joe Biden article even has a hatnote leading to the Biden disambiguation page, which resembles Cessaune's idea. If both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the most common search results when searching using their surnames only, why does the former link to the actual person while the latter links to a disambiguation page? I'm not trying to argue anything here. I'm just looking for an explanation. -- KingErikII  ( Talk page ) 11:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The explanation is other stuff exists. The words trump and biden are not equivalent. Otherwise it doesn't seem that important to me. Users seeking this Trump can type Donald or endure an additional click. Anyway, isn't this discussion at the wrong venue? WP:RFD: If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. I know other stuff exists, but I was looking for a more concrete explanation. Thanks a lot for clarifying! Regarding Loveforwiki's proposal, I don't really mind either outcome. I rather wanted an answer to what looked like some inconsistency between articles to me. And you're right; RFD is probably a better area for this topic. -- KingErikII  ( Talk page ) 14:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The proper venue would be a requested move discussion at Talk:Trump. The page is not a redirect, so RfD isn't the right spot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, that seems better yeah. I appreciate the additional clarification! -- KingErikII  ( Talk page ) 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the move was repeatedly discussed and declined on the talk page of the Trump disambiguation page, according to Talk:Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if anything is the primary topic for "trump" it is trump (card games). Trumps have existed in card games for centuries and will continue to exist long after this man is dead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the first major pillar of determining a primary topic is usage - what are people using Wikipedia to seek out? The article for Trump (card games) averages 300 views per day; the article for Donald Trump averages at least 40,000. Around 1% of people use the dab page to learn about the card game; 91% of people go straight to Donald Trump. The choice of primary topic by usage does not get much more obvious than this.
 * The second pillar, long-term significance, may be more of a toss-up. Both U.S. Presidents and card games have a pretty large claim to world cultural influence. I might give the slight edge to the card game term, just in the scope of the entirety of human history. But as Cessaune said, redirects are cheap, and can always be changed in the future. At present, we would best serve our readers by redirecting Trump to Donald Trump. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue. As I mentioned above, the move was repeatedly discussed and declined on the talk page of the Trump disambiguation page, according to Talk:Trump.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When anyone search Trump, It doesn't come Donald Trump anywhere. That's the point. People come to search for Donald Trump. Trump (disambiguation) page would be there for other uses. Loveforwiki (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Biased article
This article reads as if it had been written by a Biden supporter. Political bias should never be present in Wikipedia articles. Poor show and a poor article. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See the first answer in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree 2600:1700:3427:260:A2A8:79D2:678D:C235 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Change “presumptive nominee” to “nominee”
Under “Post-presidency (2021-present” > “2024 presidential campaign,” “He is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party” should be changed to “He is the nominee for the Republican Party.” It’s official as of today. 74.69.77.75 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence. See edit summary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
92.40.201.99 (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) I like to place something things about this article and be the keep owner of this article and look after it
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

More in depth Coronavirus Policy should be added.
There should be mention of the CARES Act (the largest stimulus bill in American history) and Operation Warp Speed (The plan governing Vaccine Research and Manufacturing) within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump. specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualifications that have been mentioned on this talk page of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided by the legislation alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course). It should be noted I do not expect the citations that I presented regarding him taking credit for them to be used as a reference in any actual proposed addition to it as, like most interviews Trump permits, they are usually only through interviewers who are pretty lightweight when it comes to journalism. I am presenting them regardless as Trump's "personal involvement" in a policy appears to be a requirement for it's mention in the 'Presidency' section of his article. Despite the lack of hard-hitting journalism of his interviewers, they're still accurate indicators of what he thinks of the policies since he's literally taking credit for them in the interviews and saying that he's proud of them. The references are as follows:

Additionally, both the actual legislative policy that passed under his administration and the background policy of vaccine research and distribution are obviously important given they were half of the U.S. government's response to the pandemic (the other half being Biden's). I have provided additional citations that should verify that these actions taken by the administration are in fact notable given, once again, they were half of the U.S. Government's response to a global pandemic and the second worse economic downturn in American history only after the Great Depression. The references are as follows: LosPajaros (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No 90.235.80.11 (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Quoting U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: During 2020 and 2021, the U.S. Congress passed major stimulus packages as part of an aggressive effort to fight both the pandemic and its economic impact. Three major bills were passed: the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * How does that purport they are not relevant for mention though? All legislation passes through Congress so that's not specifically unique. Two out of three acts you mentioned passed and were supported by the Trump administration and, with the addition of Operation Warp Speed, all of them are still big chunks of the U.S. government's policy towards COVID-19 that Trump has openly taken credit for. LosPajaros (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind your opposition to it's inclusion? I'm sorry if I'm missing something but I'm not seeing a reason for why it should not be included via the quote that you provided. Mention of the American Rescue Plan is also mentioned on Joe Biden's 'Presidency' section of his page so I'm not sure how mention of the CARES Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 would be a significant deviation from expected material in Trump's respective 'Presidency' section. You had previously stated that inclusion of material on this article must relate to information that is both notable and had personal support from Trump himself. The references I have provided should meet both of those requirements. LosPajaros (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the covid vaccine, see reference 7. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Scholarly analysts e.g. the Columbia study, have concluded that Trump's negligence and willful misrepresentations led to hundreds of thousands of needless American deaths. We also have his own words to Bob Woodward on this point. Those could both be more prominently conveyed, along with the maladministration of the relief funds that was largely responsible for the subsequent inflation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That may very well be an accurate assessment. I'm not going to make a claim they were objectively good or bad. Even if the conclusion made in this Talk section is that the legislation and vaccine programs were ill-formed and laced with problems, notable failed policy is still notable policy. Whether it's Ford's WIN, Reagan's Star Wars, or Clinton/Bush's respective proposals to healthcare and social security, even unsuccessful policy, if notable enough, should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies. LosPajaros (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies" We have separate articles about their respective presidencies. It is unclear why the policies should also be mentioned in the bio articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reason: They were rooted only in Trump's personal proclivities, elevated above any policy or administrative objective. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notable policy associated with a President is always mentioned in the 'Presidency' section of their Wikipedia article. There's no reason why Trump should be the exception to that rule. Especially since He has expressed personal support for them occurring. LosPajaros (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

covid-19 spending package
"since no reason was provided in the Talk section in opposition"

No consensus. I'm not confident everything in this edit is due, but that isn't to say a consensus isn't possible. DN (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. The points I presented I believe still stand regarding notability of the legislation alongside the personal involvement and support of Trump himself. Those were the requirements previously laid out by in terms of whether or not policy should be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Additionally, in prior Talk page discussions relating to the possible addition of the Abraham Accords he has himself stated that a simple 'No' or 'Yes' comment was not significant enough to be counted as a 'vote'. My apologies if my following of those instructions may have in any way come off in a negative or insolent manner.
 * The Quotes I have provided relating to Trump's personal support of the legislation are as follows:
 * The Quotes I have provided relating to notability of the legislation in addition to Operation Warp Speed are as follows:     LosPajaros (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it necessarily need it's own sub-section? Could it be integrated into to existing COVID-19 pandemic section, as it is extensive. DN (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to it being integrated into the existing subsection. My contention was that it should qualify for mention in this Wikipedia article. LosPajaros (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * no reason was provided — no reason you accept?  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the ABC source. I had forgotten how Trump's name ended up on the IRS checks. I don't know too much about it ... I'm sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it. So, "personal support" by sharpie or, in this case, the IRS, without precedent, printing the sitting president's name "on a payment from the IRS, an agency that has often sought to maintain its independence from partisan politics".  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I said 'no reason provided' I was referring to the initial response you made where you just said 'No' and provided a quote without elaboration of the reason behind it. I understand you probably had a decent reasoning behind your opposition but the only statement in opposition that was made was a 'No' and there wasn't an explanation the point you were trying to make. The personal support of Trump is shown in both how he takes credit for the bills, and how he used them to campaign in 2020. I thought both rose to the level of support you had previously said was necessary. LosPajaros (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we cannot present his false narratives without identifying them as such, and that's pointless.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump taking credit for and supporting legislation he has lied about its effects of like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are already mentioned in this article. In both, he lied about its effects, openly supported it, and campaigned on it. Trump lies quite often, that's nothing new. But both of the qualifications of notability and personal support have been met. If there is consensus that he lied or mislead the public about this policy and such a note is added that is fine also and I would support that because it would provide added nuance.LosPajaros (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I myself what? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry my apologies. I thought you were a different user. I agree that further context should be provided to indicate nuance about these policies LosPajaros (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You reverted twice to your preferred version, despite the rather prominent "You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" warning. Be thankful you didn't earn a block for that. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand. I'm still not super used to how edits for Talk discussions work. I'll revert my edits. Is there a rule set I can look at to see the rules that are typically followed for Talk discussion posts? thank you. LosPajaros (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: . If you choose to make substantive changes to your comment after replies, especially when such changes destroy context, you have to do it by deleting (striking) and inserting (underscoring) text per the instructions at WP:REDACT. After your changes, SPECIFICO's comment "I myself what?" makes no sense; hence the destroyed context. I'm half inclined to fix this for you, but I'll settle for your agreement not to do this again. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you for that information. I'll make sure to use it in the future. LosPajaros (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Continuing on the topic of discussion, I agree that context should be provided to address false narratives. If there were to be an addition of such context regarding Trump's support of the stimulus spending I would be perfectly fine with that. The notability of the legislation and the fact that Trump did express open support for the legislation has not been questioned though. And both of those qualities were what was previously required for addition onto this page. The legislation is the most sizeable passed during his presidency and he openly supported its provisions both during the drafting of it and on the campaign trail. LosPajaros (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given there has continued to not be a direct, straightforward position given for opposition to this legislations inclusion is it fair to say that merit for inclusion has been met? From my interpretation of the above comments (and please correct me if my interpretation is off in any way) the only direct position taken is that if inclusion is to be made it should make direct note and refute falsehoods made by Trump in his support for the legislation. If there is still opposition to it's inclusion it should be stated as such in a clear and direct manner so that it can either be addressed or so this discussion can end for good. LosPajaros (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Too much detail for legislation Congress passed without Trump's input, except for insisting that his name be on the checks. Mr. Trump had a hand in the agreement, if only by keeping his distance from the talks. ... Work it out yourselves, Mr. Trump told the pair on a conference call. ([NYT]) WP:NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." There's no consensus to add, IMO. As others have said, the material could be added to the Presidency article, and/or to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and/or 116th United States Congress. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from but I don't see how the "support" and "personal involvement" for these pieces of legislation are any less involved than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. After all, The bulk of it was the brainchild of Paul Ryan over anyone else. The multiple references I provided (not just the one about his name on the checks) have shown a consistent level of support both during the drafting of the bills and after they were politically salient. He has also supported the legislation on a level consistent with legislation already mentioned in this article and notability of the programs have not been questioned. Is this legislation any different in notability and personal support than legislation already present on his page? Potential addition does not have to be as detailed as the initial edit if that's one of your sticking points. That was mainly added just to provide a baseline for information that could be culled or built upon with community involvement. LosPajaros (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As you may recall, I too gave a reasoned objection to your proposal.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From how I'm reading your reply it appears that the reason for your opposition is that there is no consensus regarding the legislation. However, almost the entirety of any lack of consensus comes from your opposition. And given that your opposition is that there is a lack of consensus resulting from your opposition that there's a lack of consensus doesn't that become a self-fulfilling-prophecy-esque scenario? In the discussion (and again, correct me if I'm interpreting anyone's position here incorrectly) there appears to me multiple people either in favor of it's addition -provided certain notes- or neutral but not opposed to it's addition. If that's the case, does that go against your point that there's no consensus on it? LosPajaros (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"despite losing the popular vote"
This clause in the lead reads like a partisan dig. This is not the relevant test in a presidential election. He did not win 'despite' lacking some kind of broader mandate. He won the election, and we should acknowledge that without caveat in the lead. If someone feels the need to explain the electoral college in the body, that might be more appropriate, but I have my doubts. Riposte97 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable, because it's a very rare quirk of the American electoral system. The last two presidents that lost the popular vote were George W. Bush in 2000 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Both of their lead sections mention the fact that they lost the popular vote.
 * The only other two cases are John Quincy Adams in 1824 and Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877. Both of those were special cases, which are explained in the lead sections of the two biographies. It seems reasonable to mention it in this lead section, too.
 * It's not a "partisan rip" if you accept the legitimacy of US electoral law. It's simply pointing out a notable fact. Pecopteris (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a tough call. Yes it’s very notable, but if I had to trim the lead I think it would be among the first things to go. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree “while” is more neutral compared to “despite” <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have an idea on how to rewrite that sentence. End the sentence at Hillary Clinton and split into a new sentence. Remove the efn that clarifies how the election system works, as it will now be fully visible. It would now read something along the lines of Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee. Although his primary opponent, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote, Trump won the presidency via the electoral college. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A president winning the election while losing the popular vote is notable because it rarely happens, and especially so if said president is an incredibly divisive figure. Cortador (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As said above, it is a peculiarity of the US electoral system this can happen, thus is notable so that non-Americans can understand how he won. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said when I reverted the bold edit: removing the information that he did not win the popular vote is whitewashing, especially considering that he doesn't just claim to have won the election in 2020, he also claims that he won the popular vote in 2016 — never mind that his opponents got 3 million more votes in 2016 and 7 million more in 2020. Non-Americans need an explanation why the person who received the majority of the votes in 2016 did not win the election. The note is the best and shortest way to do this, and it was much discussed and amended several times. Alternative wording without the alleged MOS:EDITORIAL words "while" or "despite": Trump, the Republican Party nominee, won the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, won the popular vote. Whether current or alternative wording, the note is needed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not whitewashing to observe the election result. It's blackwashing (if this term doesn't yet exist, I’m coining it) to add a caveat to a lawful election. Trump's false claims are irrrelevant to assessing that question.
 * 2) Most democracies have an internal executive, so most non-Americans would immediately intuit this. The 'popular vote' is a myopic American preoccupation.
 * 3) It doesn't belong in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most democracies have a what? The U.S. is a presidential republic where the president is not elected by popular vote but by an electoral college that favors the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. E.g., in 2016 California had one elector per 712,000 people while Wyoming had one elector per 195,000, i.e., a vote cast in Wyoming was worth 3.6 votes cast in California. I’m fairly certain that many Americans can’t intuit this, let alone people living in presidential republics such as Brazil, where the president is elected by direct vote and each vote is worth exactly one vote, or in parliamentary republics where a parliament elected by popular vote elects a head of government. Anyway, I kind of like 's cogent bold edit, so I didn't bother to count my reverts and left it as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your explanation of parliamentary democracy is incorrect. An internal executive means that the executive is formed by the parliamentary party with the most seats. The parliament does not elect the head of government. This means that the 'popular vote' can have little to do with who heads the government. For an American, compare it to an electoral college, where the electors are also congressmen. That is the more usual system around the world, and why I say that the 'popular vote' is a very specific preoccupation mostly found on the American left.
 * Giovanosky's edit certainly reads better, but the material simply does not belong in the lead. It is superfluous for most readers. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary democracies have different ways of forming governments. In Poland, e.g., the president and head of state is elected by popular vote and appoints the prime minister and the cabinet members. Their appointments must be confirmed by more than half of the members of parliament. In Germany, the ceremonial head of state/president nominates the candidate for the chancellorship proposed by the party or coalition of parties with the most votes, and the full parliament then votes. The coalition of parties may not include the party with the most votes (e.g. 30%), but it still represents the majority of popular votes cast. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Changed the preposition from "despite" to "while". 1) "while" is already used in the body. 2) "despite" gives the impression that there's something nefarious about winning the election and losing the popular vote. 3) We had a discussion about this a while ago (can't be bothered to comb through the archives) and there was tentative support to change the preposition from "despite" to "while". Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead initially said "although" and "but" in 2020, then "while" until it was changed to "despite" in Oct 22. After this discussion in June 2023 it reverted to "while". Changed to "despite" on June 1, 2024, I reverted to "while" on June 9, and was reverted a few hours later.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like while was the long term version and I see no compelling evidence that there’s consensus to change it - so it should be restored to 'while' and if editor(s) want to open a discussion to change that they can do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Best to restore long-term version. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this information is pretty notable, especially considering WP:GLOBAL and WP:GLOBALIZE. The US is the only presidential republic I know of where a candidate can win a national election without a majority. Although I also think "while" is more appropriate than "despite" for an encyclopedic, NPOV tone. CVDX (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The US is the only presidential republic I know of where a candidate can win a national election without a majority." Presidential perhaps, but the United Kingdom has a history of political parties winning the popular vote and still having less parliament seats than their opponents. See for example the February 1974 United Kingdom general election: "Although Heath's incumbent Conservative government polled the most votes by a small margin, the Conservatives were overtaken in terms of seats by Wilson's Labour Party because of a more efficiently distributed Labour vote. Ultimately, the decision by the seven Ulster Unionist MPs not to take the Conservative whip proved decisive in giving Labour a slim plurality of seats. The other four unionists elected were hardliners who were not affiliated with the UUP." Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The UK Conservative government won a majority of seats despite getting less than 50% of the vote and Labour is expected to win a "super majority" despite polling at less than 50%.
 * Of course, the UK isn't a presidential republic, but the U.S. is the only stable democracy that is. TFD (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Both George W. Bush & Benjamin Harrison mention "despite losing the popular vote". All of them should be changed to "while" or all of them should be kept at "despite" (I'd support the latter). It feels more like a partisan dig when only this one is brought up. AG202 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse removing "despite". It's a word to watch; see WP:DESPITE. There's no reason why it should be favoured over the more neutral "while". — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. "While" was restored in this article three weeks ago. The pages of George W. Bush and Benjamin Harrison are of no concern here. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?
Closure requested. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.

Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

Cortador (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Tagging editors involved in the above discussion:@Iamreallygoodatcheckers @Space4Time3Continuum2x @Riposte97 @Mandruss @Valjean Cortador (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?)

 * No "Canceled" in favor of what exactly? Where is the place in the article you think we should call Trump a liar? I don't see a neutral, encyclopedic way to refer to someone as a liar, when we have "makes false statements" right there. As for calling individual falsehoods lies, I'm a bit more open to that, and it's fine if it's a direct quotation. But honestly, I think this RfC isn't stated clearly and you could do a whole RfC just for "lies".  The  Savage  Norwegian  23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In favour of not having an article-specific editorial policy stating that subject of the article cannot be called a "liar" in Wikivoice independently from what RS state, just like basically any other article on Wikipedia. This RfC wasn't opened to replace this policy with another specific one, but to see whether there is consensus to cancel it. Cortador (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we don't call other article subjects liars in their articles either. It's just that in this one, the topic keeps getting raised repeatedly. It's just an extension of no contentious MOS:LABELs. My instinct is the minute we remove such a policy the topic will immediately arise again. It's doing no harm as-is.  The Savage  Norwegian  14:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What other subjects are called liars or people who lie by RS? Effectively banning a description used by RS isn't avoiding labels, it's a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No This is an encyclopedia entry, not a persuasive essay. There is already an entire article about Donald Trump's false or misleading statements, which is linked in this article. That will suffice. Pecopteris (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No (bot summons) As Pecopteris points out, his false or misleading statements are extensively documented, and when was the last time WP called anyone a liar in wikivoice? Reading the linked discussion, I see nothing really novel or convincing. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment We would need to see evidence that "Donald Trump is a liar" has become an oft-repeated mainstream point-of-view since 2017, in reliable sources. Has it? Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is list of sources that is part of the discussion I liked to, as well as a list of sources in the original 2017 discussion. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No/Bad RfC - I don't think this RfC is needed right now, especially with two other fairly significant and contentious ones going on at the same time, and this is an already settled issue and I'm not seeing wide call to rehash it. Otherwise, no, Trump should not be called a "liar" in wiki voice. Being called such would constitute a contentious label, which are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and even still "in-text attribution" ought to be used, not placing the label in wiki voice. I've quickly searched for reliable source's characterizing Trump as a liar and have been left empty handed. Also, no reliable sourcing has been provided by those who support characterizing Trump as such in wiki voice. Furthermore, the existence of consensus item 22, as pointed out by Mandrus, Valjean, Space4Time, among others in the above discussion, does not conflict with calling many of the false statements by Trump "lies." There is a distinction between labeling someone as a "liar" and reporting how reliable sources have characterized someone's false statement's as lies. The latter is permissible if deemed to be due weight and neutral; though I think it's neutral, I've raised weight concerns for this specific article in the above discussion since I find it to be a largely semantic thing for an article in summary-level detail. Even though reporting something as a lie does imply the person is a liar, implying something is not the same as stating something, and it's also possible to lie and not be a full-fledged liar, and whether or not Trump is that is not a decision for us to make. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Not encyclopedic language, and the lack of veracity around Trump's statements is already abudently clear. I can't see what benefit there would be to adding the word 'lie' in Wikivoice, and would make the NPoV arguments about this article considerably worse. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RfC I am unsure that any politicians tell the truth (or any businessman), I am unsure therefore that Trump is unique there. Also I dislike RFC's that ask open questions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you position. If you are unsure if Trump is unique, why do you support a special editorial policy that only exists for the article about him? Cortador (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No How is this not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS label? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No - Best to leave it as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No In an effort to WP:Dropthestick, I simply add my voice to the chorus here and move on my merry way. Penguino35 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes/support of partial revision. We should not use the word "liar" but the word "lie(s) " is justified when the claim is shown to be a falsehood and it is shown that the subject knew it was false at the time of making it. By partially revising C22 to only apply to "liar" we can make the rules concise such that it *would* be MOS:CONTENTIOUS to override it. But as it stands now, the word "lie" is not a value-laden descriptor.


 * Jk misread c22. But it is exceedingly confusingly worded. We should revise it to mention that the word "lie" is permitted when intent is provenEditing-dude144 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No. There is no justifiable reason to overturn the previous consensus. JoseJan89 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Partial yes  - if he lied, and it’s reported as a lie or falsehood in reliable sources, there is no reason editors should have to juggle words and call it “a false statement” rather than “a lie”. That is a simple synonym that will save space in this article when discussing his false statements. That said, there is no reason that we should be calling him a liar in wikivoice. As House MD says, Everybody Lies. Find me someone who hasn’t told a lie in their life, and I’ve found your newest liar to add to the list (or something like that). So yes, it’s inappropriate to label him as a “liar” - but it’s not inappropriate to call specific statements he made lies if that is the shortest/most concise way to express their falsehood. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, and I’m making this comment after preview so I’m indenting it, but I think there should be no restriction on calling a false statement a lie if and only if  reliable sources call it a lie or a known falsehood. The consensus currently makes it sound like things should not be called lies in the article at all - and I think there should be a different discussion over when things should be called lies or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference between a false statement and a lie is that the term lie implies intention to deceive. You would need a psychiatric assessment to determine that, not just a reporter with a BA in communications. A conviction of perjury, lying to federal officials etc. would probably be sufficient as well. TFD (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Anything known to be false, even if used as hyperbole, is a "lie" in the common use of the word. Wiktionary (meaning 3, noun), M-W meaning noun2-1b, and other dictionaries don't universally require that it be done with intent to deceive either. The common meaning of the word "lie" is "falsehood", not that it's intending to deceive, and we should allow editors to call things lies with 3-4 characters rather than having to dance around their words. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Believe what you want but I don't think either of us knows what most readers are thinking. We can only speak for ourselves and intent is what has always distinguished lie from falsehood for me. (If it doesn't, we need a new word for that.) Back to the M-W entry you cited: Verb(2)-1 "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". As for Wiktionary, I don't care much about a dictionary that anyone can edit, especially if it differs from people who do vocabulary research for a living. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe for clarity I need to state this - I am discussing the use of the noun "lie" to describe lies he has told. Not using the word lie as a verb to say "trump lied" or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Distinction without difference in my book. First noun sense at M-W: "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive". Subsequent noun senses omit intent, but the first one is usually the most prevalent in common usage. In a BLP, any error should be on the side of caution and saving a few characters is hardly a worthwhile priority. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC. I'd love to see us clamp down on "should consensus item #X" be changed RfCs. Just propose an actual article change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Lies" is less controversial. But at what number does he become a "liar"? That would be more difficult to decide. Senorangel (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It mainly depends on context, however Trump is associated with some of the most notable lies in recent American history according to recent mainstream sources like NBC News and Slate. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not justifiable that the subject gets special editorial protection in what amounts to a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a bundled reply to some of the comments made here:
 * "It's not encyclopedic" - Wikipedia's policy is to reflect what RS state. Consensus 22 violates that principle.
 * "No/Bad RfC/Propose an actual article change" - I don't understand this argument, as it labels this RfC as bad, but supports the previous one, which revolves about the exact same question.
 * "It's a contentious label" - The article on labels names "cult" and "racist" as examples of such labels, yet Wikipedia calls Trumpism a cult of personality in Wikivoice, as it is backed up by sources. MOS:CONTENTIOUS doesn't ban the use of any specific descriptor. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have two arguments here. (1) to label Trump as a "liar" is a reflection of RS; and (2) That it is not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS issue because Trumpism is labeled a cult of personality. First of all, I do believe there is a distinction in contention between a cult of personality and a cult, but it's not really important anyway because what the Trumpism argument says about something that is not at issue in this discussion is irrelevant. Also, it could very well be possible that the Trumpism article should not say this anyway because of the MoS. Now, even if you believe that MOS:CONTENTION allows for such labels to be said it wikivoice (which it very clearly doesn't, but I'll regress), you'd still need to prove that the label "liar" is "widely used by reliable sources," and this has not been done. No sources have been provided and it would take many before the label could even be considered. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> R. G. Checkers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 06:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided. I've already done that above.
 * The onus is not on me to prove that this article shouldn't have a special rule that excludes content regardless of what RS say. The question of the RfC isn't "Should this article call Trump a liar" but "Should be remove an previous consensus" because that consensus violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing the consensus isn't going to change anything. We aren't going to call Donald Trump a liar in Wikivoice regardless of whether this consensus exists, because 1) widely used in reliable sources hasn't been satisfied and 2) per MOS:CONTENTIOUS, we couldn't call him a liar in Wikivoice anyway (in which case use in-text attribution). The only argument that could be made here is that "liar" isn't a contentious term. I consider it to be. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - This may be done only in the situation that multiple WP:RS use the term in a consistent manner, and even then, restricted to the context in which the WP:RS use it. This is consistent with wikipedia policy on any label applied to a person, including negative ones.  Absolutely no WP:OR should be allowed here, so again, only when backed by reliable sources using the term, and only in the same context and scope said reliable sources use it in. Fieari (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment — If you're concerned about the article losing credibility by appearing biased against Trump, there's nothing you can do about that. That ship has already sailed. Also, the article already essentially says that Trump is a liar. So this discussion may be of no significance with regard to those points. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes Donald Trump is a liar. That fact is, at this point, indisputable. How can any article about him claim accuracy without stating this salient fact?Coalcity58 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter; bad RfC: MOS:CONTENTIOUS precludes us from calling Trump a liar in Wikivoice (...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution). Since I consider "liar" to be the very definition of a contentious label, cancelling this consensus item doesn't mean much, at least in practice. Note that this consensus item only refers to Wikivoice.This is a misuse of the RfC system. RfCs on whether a specific item should be "cancelled" are RfCs that shouldn't exist. Unless there is a process issue within the original RfC (in which case the discussion outcome should be brought to WP:AN), one cannot simply hold a discussion on whether or not they can cancel the results of a previous discussion, because this is a practice that is reserved for AN. This circumvents the system in a gross way, because this suggests that if I disagree with the outcome of an RfC I can simply hold another RfC to 'retry' and see if the editor mix this time around is in my favor. No. You can't do that. That's essentially what's happening here, without any malice of course. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As the editor who suggested/recommended this RfC framing, I feel a responsibility to respond. It sounds like you're talking about closure review, which is not what this is. Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure. Rather, it's simply a group of editors deciding whether the original consensus should be negated based on a change in the external situation&mdash;whether #22 should be "superseded" by "nothing". Absent such change&mdash;if this were nothing but a change in editor mix&mdash;I would oppose the existence of this RfC. The change in the external situation, in case you missed it: At the time #22 was reached, MSM avoided the word lie in droves; now they don't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure. Actually it looks like some might be doing just that. To them, I'd say that ship sailed in 2017. But that's insufficient reason to shut down the RfC, and I see nothing wrong with bringing up policy questions here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I stick with my original point: cancelling the outcome of the original RfC will have no impact. Cessaune   [ talk ]   17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the previous consensus calling him a liar should not be cancelled. There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Actually, this is one of his defining characteristics, something he is famous for. That would be different for most other BLP pages. This is a nearly unique case. A note to closer. This RfC question was framed in a tricky way. Some contributors who voted "Yes" actually meant "no". My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears maybe you have also been tripped up by the question - your comments seem to reflect mine, that if he's a spade, we should be able to call him a spade. The RfC asks "should we cancel the consensus item that prevents us from calling him a spade". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Partial Yes. Consensus 22 currently reads Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. If reliable sources refer to specific statements as lies then we should not be limited in doing likewise, without necessarily referring to him as being a liar. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who want to call Trump a liar, you could use it to simplify the lead by changing,
 * Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

to
 * Trump promoted conspiracy theories and is the biggest liar in the history of American politics.

which essentially says the same thing. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as I believe the word "lie" doesn't reflect an encyclopedic tone and is too loaded a word to use on a contentious, BLP article. There are many, many alternatives to this wording. Attributed usage of the word is, of course, fine. CVDX (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your description and description of President Trump seems incredibly misleading and biased. 174.109.243.158 (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorta yes. Calling trump a "liar" doesn't feel encyclopedic at all, nor really saying "lies", HOWEVER, I believe the article should be able to include things such as "trump made numerous inaccurate/false/incorrect statements." A Socialist   Trans Girl  22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already says that, quite a lot. I think this is really a "no" !vote. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ob li viously. This RfC is not about "inaccurate/false/incorrect statements". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. We look to sources for facts, not for their judgments about what is in Trump's mind. The latter is for readers to decide for themselves, and they are capable of reading between the lines. What's important for our purposes is that the statements are demonstrably false, not whether Trump knows they are false. Wikivoice "lie" is unencyclopedic and unnecessary; attributed "lie" is fine within reasonable limits. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very good way of wording it. There's a clear difference between false/misleading and lie. One is demonstrable for us to say, the other less so. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you ignore what a source is stating because you don't consider it a "fact", you are conducting original research. Cortador (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The consensus that calls Trump a liar should not be cancelled We should call Trump a liar. This discussion actually dates back to Trumps earliest appearance on the scene as a viable candidate for president against Hillary Clinton. His relationship with the truth hasn't changed. Call it what you will, but "lies" says it best <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  (UTC) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the question. The consensus is not to call him a liar. I think you want this to be a "yes" !vote. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Czello. I have changed it to a comment in order to clarify. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  (UTC) 12:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Retain the current consensus Our NPOV policy requires us to remain neutral. Under no circumstances should we - Wikipedia we - be calling trump a lair. Our job is not to pile on, its to compile what 2nd and 3rd party publications have said to build an article. Disable this consensus point and we may invite arbcom intervention here or - at the very extreme end of things WMF intervention - to retain our NPOV. Since so many attempting to contribute to this article come from a position of helpful ignorance its important this be stated so we can correct content in line with the NPOV policy we have here on cite. Leave this consensus point alone. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now, the consensus is to disregard what sources say in this instance. It's an explicit exception to the NPOV policy. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No That's just unencylopaedic and violation of NPOV. PadFoot  (talk)
 * Comment — I'm just realizing that this is a bad RfC question. The consensus item is far more nuanced than the question suggests, and we're missing an entire clause. The consensus item issn't even present in the description of the question. The question isn't an accurate summary of the consensus item. The closer's job is going to be a lot harder because of this. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - but rather his lies should be called out as lies, and we can let the reader determine the implication. Skyerise (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Idea to consider
This change would merge the sentence I've disputed as an undue semantic issue with the first sentence of the false and misleading statement's section. Another option may be for the first sentence to say  "...Trump frequently made false statements and lies in public remarks..." as a substitute for the sentence I've disputed, but this would remove context of the shift over time I suppose. So it could be more NPOV-problematic. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 07:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024
This is a clearly biased article. I am not a trump supporter but to say he’s among the worst presidents of all time is entirely subjective. 2601:482:1:E630:D519:5F40:8D85:7BA (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the references. Read the instructions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus page
Should the current consensus page be updated to remove all superseded or obsolete Entries? At present the current consensus page has a lot of entries which are superseded or obsolete, for example: 21. Superseded by #39 ... 36. Superseded by #39 ... 39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021) The shear number of these entries makes the current consensus page longer than it otherwise would be. Should we remove the superseded and obsolete entries such in the above example 21 and 36 would disappear and 39 would renumbered to 37 (presuming that those were the only two superseded entries in the whole list) and 37 would read: 37. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)? Doing this would significantly reduce the current consensus page length and aid readability. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't renumber them as that would change which consensus people reference in existing edit summaries. --Nintendofan885T&amp;Cs apply 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? I'm sure people would be able to refer to the banner to see what number they want to use. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention anything about not shortened it, just about not renumbering. --Nintendofan885T&amp;Cs apply 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We would lose the history of what was superseded or obsoleted and why that was done, and people reading the main space revision history would look up the wrong consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885T&amp;Cs apply 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Waaay out of my league — I can't even figure out how to continue a numbered list after adding a couple of bullet points after a numbered item.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The concern could be partly addressed. Some of the superseded or obsolete items come in groups: 15–19, 23–24, 35–36. These could be respectively combined, resulting in three lines instead of nine.
 * FYI there was a proposal a month ago to collapse the whole consensus list . 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk)


 * Really? To "save" four small-text lines? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time. I was thinking of this,


 * But if you don't like it, that's OK. No biggie for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but cost exceeds benefit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, it was pretty quick and easy. I could do it for the other two groups too, if it's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cost in added complexity, something often misunderstood or overlooked. Sorry for not being clear. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I think this is a good idea. Collapsing multiple entries in a row which are superseded or obsolete would address why I started this thread by a fair bit. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is frankly silly. The superseded items used to be left "expanded" (uncollapsed) but stricken, as shown here. That worked adequately for awhile, then it was decided readability could be improved by collapsing them instead (I was initially opposed; but it has grown on me). That has worked just fine, and now we're complaining about the "difficulty" of having to visually skip the collapsed (and smaller-text) items and do a little more scrolling? Please. When it comes to trading simplicity for readability (dubious in this case), we're already past the point of diminishing returns. As Space4T indicated, we need this for history tracking, and it's fine where it is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to removing the superseded entries, but I am strongly opposed to renumbering, as it would be confusing and it would invalidate the archived discussions referring to it. So, as long as no renumbering is attempted, I support it.  Mel ma nn   08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasons for not renumbering and think Bob has raised a great suggestion that doesn’t involve renumbering. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the example I gave above uses the same type of source code that is already in use many times in the list. All it involved was putting before the group of items,

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do something I have never done before. I am asserting that editors who have worked with the list for years should have far more say in this matter. In this discussion to date, that's Slatersteven, Space4T, Bob K31416, and me. Others should give themselves time to get used to the list before forming judgments that would affect everyone now and future. Perspectives very often change with the passage of time. I won't give this up without doing everything in my power to prevent it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, a steel-cage match between Captain Iar and Commander Randy. This should be fun. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The suggestion may be easy to implement but it makes it much harder for people looking at the main space revision history to find the consensus item in question if they have to read all of them to find #22 mentioned as canceled or obsoleted in #38. And, again, I, for one, don't want to lose the history of each individual consensus item. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * lose the history I don't think any serious proposal would lose the history. One would move it to a different page; another would create this weird two-level collapsed structure for consecutive superseded/canceled/obsolete items; both to save some minimal eyeball travel and scrolling. Smh. I think some people should leave user interface design to people who have done that for a living. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, cost would exceed benefit. It would add a degree of complexity that would not be justified by the dubious, very minor at best, improvement in readability. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea. The added complexity would not be that great compared to the benefit. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just an aside...The Current consensus section is frankly HUGE. I'm in favor of almost anything that would scale it down a bit on the reading page. Shearonink (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I started this discussion. I'm not wedded to one way of doing it, so much as I'm in favour of almost anything that reduces its size. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)
Chnage "never drunk alcohol" to "never drunk alcohol" 207.96.32.81 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ - MOS:OVERLINK: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.""Never drunk alcohol" is self-explanatory and needs no elaboration or clarification. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Extremely biased
This page is extremely biased. I will not go on, for that would make me biased. But I will just say you cannot state that Trump falsely accused the electon of being rigged as an established fact. There are people on the other side who claim to have the truth, you should include this "proof" 2600:1008:B100:C5E7:0:59:AE34:F01 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The courts has said it was not, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence - civil liability for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud
Recent edits of the last sentence of the lead:

The main article E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is about both lawsuits Carroll brought against Trump. The first one ("Carroll I", Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311), filed in 2019), was for defamation. After New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, allowing "victims of sexual offenses for which the statute of limitations has lapsed to file civil suits for a one-year period from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023", Carrol brought a second lawsuit ("Carroll II", CARROLL v. TRUMP (2023), 22-cv-10016) for sexual battery and defamation (different incidents of defamation than those in "Carroll I"). Carroll II went to trial first, verdict in May 2023, $5 million in damages. Carroll I followed in January 2024, $83.3 million in emotional, reputational, and punitive damages. Condensing that information into one clause with the link to the main article some editors insist we absolutely need to have (because heaven forbid people should feel the need to read the body) makes for a very long Wikilink. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does seem wordy, but hard to see how else we can say three separate things. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a better way to do this. It's inevitably wordy. Wordings 2, 3, and 4 avoid the overly long wikilink while simultaneously being true. Cessaune   [ talk ]   22:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)