![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 |
The above discussion has gotten rather complex and messy. I split this new proposal because it seemed to me that a significant point of contention was the rape content, so hopefully, we can quickly achieve consensus on the other content, which are the basic facts, to include in the article first. I invite all editors to weigh in on this discussion to decide what content to include, and where. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
To make it easier to follow this long unwieldy section, here is a summary of the three questions at hand:— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed text:
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him. [3]
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.
... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: We are not determining here precisely which version of the text should be included. These proposals are rough drafts. The question here is "Should we include this content? and where?" The specifics of "What form should this content take, if included?" are more closely delineated and debated in the " Different versions of the text" section at the bottom. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
POV caption stricken and replaced SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [4] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him. [5]
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for "battery 'when he forcibly raped and groped her' in 1995 or 1996 and for defamation for his October 2022 statement that she "completely made up a story". [6] In May 2023, the jury found Trump liable for battery sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in compensation and damages. [7] He appealed the verdict. [8]
... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ...Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
battery sexual abusephrase intentional? (Just checking!) Also if we're going to say she accused him of rape, I think the npov concerns come up even stronger, because then it makes it look like, in accepting the battery claim, the jury also accepted the rape claim, when it rejected the rape claim and accepted a sexual abuse claim. (For purposes of this discussion I'm using "claim" in a legal sense—a plaintiff's claim against a defendant.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.
... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [1] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. [1] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
He offered three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching.
To find that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that it was more likely than not that Mr. Trump engaged in sexual intercourse by physical force. The judge explained that “any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening” constituted intercourse.
To find that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person, Judge Kaplan said.
Forcible touching, the judge said, “includes squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts.” [1]
But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This section is framed with POV prominence given to the rape text. Here is the alternative:
In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
This fits the longstanding narrative of the article. It should have been posted with equal prominence to get neutral reactions to the proposed choice. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
*Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Could you move this discussion of POV Framing of question, which looks like a subsection, to the discussion section? Otherwise it may be disruptive. Bob K31416 ( talk)
It is the same question being asked by OP... Sorry, just for clarification, are you saying that it's a comment on Part 1?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
25+ mainstream sources showing national and international coverage on content on rape, proving
WP:DUE - starship
|
---|
|
We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article.
"Trump verdict E Jean Carroll" | "Trump Access Hollywood Tape" | |
---|---|---|
Google News: | 111,000 | 4,460 |
Google Scholar: | 7,910 | 10,900 |
Gale OneFile: | 797 | 3,990 |
EBSCO: | 117 | 383 |
Misuse and misunderstanding of search results to support invalid and false conclusion "lies, damned lies, and statistics" as the saying goes, does not tell us anything about due weight for an encyclopedia article. Search results that have survived seven years are highly significant per our 10-year test and this is a strong indication of noteworthiness for an encyclopeda. Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought. This is a baldfaced equivocation and this table is worthless to us. The fact is that with each passing day, a smaller percentage of the secondary and tertiary sources on the trial even mention "rape". The significant fact is that he was found liable for battery and defamation. BTW: Nobody has cited the WP:TERTIARY policy section. That is a strawman. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought
Update Note that with each passing day, there is less mention of "rape" in discussion of the Carroll verdict. It's receded even at Fox, who are now on to bedtime stories about the "Durham Report". The evening of the verdict, Fox blared "Trump exonerated of rape" as its lead story - but I have not heard them say this recently. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages."), but of course if we lead with "Trump was found liable for", then that will be even harder to do. I also think the second half of the first sentence in part 1 is a bit awkward. (Maybe "
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s, and for defamation on the basis of Trump's 2022 comment that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.? Idk rough drafts.) But we can nitpick the wording after the RFC.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict. [1]Either with {{Main}} or inline link, depending on location. I agree with TFD that the jury decision is more important than the original complaint, and don't agree with the other proposals. This version is devoid of any "tone" and sufficient until the verdict becomes final or is thrown out by the appeals court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
battery and defamation" is not a good summary. This is not "Legalapedia" it's Wikipedia. We should say "sexual abuse and defamation" as that is what our highest quality RSes say. Otherwise I think @ Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is fine, if perhaps too tersely worded. I would, for example, say "Shortly after, Trump appealed the verdict" or "Trump has appealed the verdict" or similar and remove the "her" in "pay her". I would also include at least one or two more sources since this is a BLP issue and that guideline recommends multiple independent sources on stuff like this. I would combine @ Jerome Frank Disciple's version and your version, STC. E.g. copyedit:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. [2] Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. [3] Trump has appealed the decision. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
Withdrawn proposal
|
---|
|
if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape findingfair point. I would agree if we use that quote, we should also mention that the jury did not find him liable for that. If we end up leaving out the rape finding, then we could summarize instead as:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. [1] Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. [2] Trump has appealed the decision. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences.But even more have said that the rape accusation and finding should be included. (I'm also not sure a consensus agree with TFD's argument. In the above discussion, one thing that was repeatedly mentioned was that we should say that a jury found that Carroll didn't prove that Trump had raped her, not that the jury found that Trump didn't rape her. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the other findings?) Now, Iamreallygoodatcheckers suggested a Part I that says the adverse findings and a Part II that says the non adverse finding, but I'm not sure how to phrase that without a lot of awkwardness. Frankly, I don' think it's at all unusual to start with a lawsuit being filed before saying the result of the lawsuit—particularly in a span of 3 sentences.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up".... That's the reason for the defamation claim, but the link isn't made explicit, so readers who don't understand what sexual assault has to do with defamation won't understand it any better. Readers should just be directed to the Carroll v Trump article. "Falsely" is also redundant with mentioning the verdict. Too many words that don't serve any purpose. Strunk wept. DFlhb ( talk) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we proceed with the new structured poll above , or is further discussion better so we agree on options to be polled?
SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This poll is premature and poorly constituted, because it does not address the the crux of the issues raised by editors above. Forcing a discussion into a second structured poll, when the first was premature, will only impede the effort to agree on what text should be added to this article -- which entails NOTNEWS and WEIGHT, rather than how many secondary news sources we can google. Without any disrespect to Starship.paint, this was a bad move, and we can return to any future poll after WP:RFCBEFORE has given us the right structure to find a good solution. Now that we've been asked to go through another poll, we need first to determine whether that is a reasonable way forward at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we include the basic facts?vs.
Should we include the content on rape?- Starship.paint, that's an evaluation right there, i.e., who wouldn't want to include the basic facts. The basic facts for this top bio are that a jury in a civil case found Trump liable for battery and defamation and that he is appealing the verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I, personally, think this is headed towards an RFC, and we should probably discuss what, exactly will be proposed there.
I don't think we need to present the question of where to include the information. Instead, I think we should present options for discussing the lawsuit. Since I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on our own, we should probably stop criticizing each other's proposals, and, instead, each faction should start making sure their view is captured by the proposal we present at an RFC. As a starting matter, I would suggest the following four options be included:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict.
In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury determined that Carrollestablishedhad proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
From my perspective, Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is the most neutral but also the least informative; Specifico's version is brief and more informative, but the least neutral; my/shibbolethink's version is the most informative but a bit long.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! @ SPECIFICO: reverted this edit [2], and I'd like to open the floor to more discussion.
The passage as it currently stands is in the "Presidency" section. It reads:
As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts have drawn rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, who are concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
It cites two articles from 2017 and one from 2019.
As I see it, the sentence as it currently stands is a mix of present perfect and present tense. But ... why? Based on the years of the sources, it's clear the rebukes that are cited refer to what the paragraph opens with—the disparagement he made "as president". Now, I'm sure some 2020 and maybe 2021 sources could be found re-echoing those points, but is there a present-day continuation that makes present-perfect structure really useful here? I would suggest:
As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts drew rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
SPECIFICO said that this edit "completely changes the meaning of the text". I disagree, but if that's true, then all the more reason for the text to be changed, since neither the 2017 or 2019 articles could possibly be used to support a present-day continuation.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Eliminate "as president". He didn't just do it as president. He disparaged courts and judges as a private citizen, as president, and now again as a private citizen; it is a lifelong habit of his. For just one example, see Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, whom he repeatedly attacked as a "hater" and a "Mexican". -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics
require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly.
Cessaune
[talk]
02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
References
It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.
I don't think we should add the reference to the lead. Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section. We put the references where the same material appears in the text. In this case, the claim is made and supported in the 2016 presidential campaign section, where it says "His campaign statements were often opaque and suggestive,[154] and a record number of them were false.[155][156][157] The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.[158][159]" So the claim that his use of false statements is "unprecedented in modern politics" has five strong references in the body of the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section—this is directly contradicted by MOS:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I think the citation is warranted. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Space4T, what's your objection? Cessaune [talk] 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Welcome. I am an anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas, and a professor at the University of Colorado. I conduct research, write, lecture, and teach. At any given time, I am probably working on one of the following projects: Tibet, British empire, and the Pangdatsang family; the CIA as an ethnographic subject; contemporary US empire; Trump, lies, racism, and political outrage; the self-immolations in Tibet; the Chushi Gangdrug resistance army; refugee citizenship in the Tibetan diaspora (Canada, France, India, Nepal, Switzerland, USA); and, anthropology as theoretical storytelling.
Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source, but this is true only in some cases:
...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.When I read this, it seems to say to me that uncontroversial assertions in the lead don't necessarily need a citation, while any controversial assertions require one, regardless of whether the assertion is in the lead or not.
there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this articlestrikes me as a SNYTHy interpretation of the text. Even if a million sources each cite completely different times in which Trump has lied/falsely asserted/mislead, we still wouldn't be able to directly say "to a degree unprecedented in American politics" based on those statements alone, so an argument that synthesizes information in this way is weak IMO. "Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead"—That's not how it works. There is no count of citations in the body that will ever make up for a lack of citations in the lead when pertaining to controversial statements. Per LEADCITE:
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead(emphasis not mine). I'm challenging it.
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described...makes me want to gag. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, are you challenging the entire sentence or the part you quoted above, to a degree unprecedented in American politics
? The local agreement on this page was to not use cites in the lead because pretty much every sentence has been flagged as wrong and/or controversial from at least once to more times than I can remember. You, FormalDude,
supported the agreement until you
didn’t, resulting in consensus item 58. So here we are again, deciding what to cite in the lead.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
See also this
MOS discussion: Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point.
I counted more comments opposing than supporting lead cites. The "here" button links to this
comment which, in turn, links to the
DT talk page RfC. The discussion seems to have ended there, without a change to the MOS section whose first and second paragraph seem contradictory to me but what do I know.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If it is that important to you to have a citation, add it. But not the one proposed above. Add this one, which says "unprecedented" right in the headline: [1] It won't be necessary to add the whole reference, since it is already cited twice in the text; just add <ref name="finnegan"/> --Melanie
Sources
|
---|
|
(Moved from my talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, since you posed questions to me in this edit summary, I figured I should respond, but I figured I'd come here since I don't have a problem with your changes. I'm not sure I follow all of your critiques ... I'd say "five" tweets over the course of a few hours is "many"? And by "false theory" ... I meant ... just that. A theory which is false. I thought about saying "false conspiracy theory" but I figured that would attract some edit warring. Either way, I have no problem with those changes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead says he or his companies have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions. According to a reliable book on this general subject, “Statistically, the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, ranging from employment disputes to consumer injuries, copyright violations and contract performances.”* I’d remove the “4,000” number from the lead because it’s devoid of such context, it doesn’t even hint that almost half of those 4,000 cases were in regards to Trump’s casinos, with the overwhelming majority of those lawsuits brought by Trump, rather than brought against him. Is there a single article at Wikipedia about any American business that gives the number of that company’s legal cases in the lead? If there is such a lead at Wikipedia (I doubt it) then let’s see if it provides some context instead of just a contextless number.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Close to half the court cases involving Trump and his businesses over the last three decades involved his casinos. About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts.
He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn'tand I responded with an article exactly on point. Where did I contend that
Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions.[1] In 2016, USA Today found that Trump or his entities were involved in more lawsuits than five other well-known real estate scions combined, with most of the lawsuits relating to debtors of Trump's casinos. Among the cases with a "clear resolution", the paper determined that Trump was the victor in 451 lawsuits and the loser in 38.[2]
References
[1] "Donald Trump: Three decades, 4,095 lawsuits". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
[2]Penzenstadler, Nick; Page, Susan (June 1, 2016). "Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee". USA Today.
Withdrawn suggestion
|
---|
|
The problem is that, presumably, the other five "real estate scions" are probably not heavily involved with hotels and casinos, which generate more lawsuits than other types of real estate investments. Cullen328 ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions,[1] with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to the pursuit of the debtors of Trump's casinos.[2]
Can't find my way through the jungle, responding to There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example
. By May 2020, most of it was gone, and by October, all of it, and the website was at 498,000 bytes.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
13:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Back to discussion of text in body
I am basically okay with the draft language for the article body but would tweak it a little:
According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions,[1] with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers.[2]
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legl actions, including six bankruptcies.
is the current text and is the best among any proposed in this discussion. There's no reason to attribute to the RS that reported public record information and there's no reason to delete the modest number of bankruptcies or to get into the causes of the actions. This top-level bio provides links with all salient detail. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Been down this road before, adding link to
January discussion and copying my responses from that discussion: "According to
USA Today, [t]he sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements
, and he was involved in more lawsuits than five top real-estate business executives combined: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
Due to the size of this article, I haven't added this USA Today article, used in the main article
Legal affairs of Donald Trump, to the USA Today lawsuit tally we do use." "Do any RS say that lawsuits concerning the casinos don’t count? Operating casinos was one of his businesses, and extending credit to gamblers was a business decision — a bad bet, as indicated by the lawsuits and the bankruptcies. The House doesn’t win if the customers gamble with the House’s money, unless you’re the mob laundering money obtained elsewhere. Follow the link in the text to
another USA Today article, Trump casino empire dogged by bad bets in Atlantic City, for more information."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Question for the people proposing to change the wording: this thread starts off with a quote that the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces faces 556 lawsuits per year
. So, where are the sources saying that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
According to a report in USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions. The largest portion of those lawsuits, roughly 1,600 of them, related to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers." (footnotes omitted). Why do you prefer a one-sentence paragraph that will suggest many different things to many different readers, such as that he's been sued 4000 times, he can't stay out of trouble, he's been in court way too much, etc etc? The paragraph in question currently says, "
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
More questions: are there any sources saying that it is routine (or was routine back when Trump owned them) for other casinos suing gamblers they've extended credit to? Or any sources on casinos having to declare bankruptcy or file for Chapter 11 protection? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done? SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Based on the above discussion, there are two questions regarding the lawsuits figure that's currently presented twice in the article. Currently, in the lead, the article says:
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.
and, later, in the legal affairs section, the article says, in a single-sentence paragraph:
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today.
The source cited is this (admittedly awesome) USA Today graphic counter the really cool USA Today graphic story. There's no date on the counter (it's hard to tell if it's still updated), but USA Today also ran a story in 2016, when the graphic was first released, and the count was 3500 lawsuits.
@ Anythingyouwant: has argued that the number, alone, is misleading, and suggests removing the number from the lead and adding context to the second mention. Specifically, Anythingyouwant thinks the 4000 number is misleading because it makes it appear that Trump or his entities were the target of 4000 lawsuits, when that's far from the case. According to the USA Today graphic, the 4000 number combines cases in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a plaintiff and in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a defendant. A plurality of the lawsuits—more than 1600—were actually lawsuits against Trump casinos' debtors. And, in cases that reached a conclusion, Trump or the Trump entity prevailed 451 times and lost 38 times. Absent at least some of that context, Anythingyouwant supports removal of the text from the article. So, the questions are:
Pinging editors already involved: @ Cullen328, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Anythingyouwant, SPECIFICO, and Objective3000:: Hello! I'm segmenting off thissection so we can all say our peace in a single point, without getting trapped in reply chains, and so that other editors can chip in a bit more easily :)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire". But, if anything, that comment made me more concerned. In reality, there's not an inherent connection between how often an entity is involved in lawsuits and whether that entity is well run: consider insurance corporations, which are named as defendants in thousands of suits—it's just the nature of their game. (And, of course, a well-run business initiates lawsuits all the time!) I'm okay with adding both the above figures (the casino-plaintiff number and the wins/losses number) to the article, but I'm torn about the wins/losses number because, based on my own knowledge, I think that figure is misleading (the problem is the selection bias in restricting the sample to cases with a clear outcome). But the casino-plaintiff figure is an additional piece of information that does provide more context to the 4000 number and concerns a huge percentage—40%!—of those lawsuits. Finally, I think we should keep the figure in the body even if the context isn't added, as the frequency with which Trump was involved with lawsuits was noted by several media entities. See: Slate, BBC, CNN, GQ.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This BLP says:
According to a review of state and federal court files conducted by USA Today in 2018, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions.[116]
Do I understand correctly that the consensus is against saying whether his side was plaintiff more often than defendant in those cases discussed by USA Today in 2018? This 2018 report by USA Today adds up to 2121 as plaintiff versus 1929 as defendant. Also, is it correct that consensus is against saying what the largest chunk of cases was about (i.e. casinos suing deadbeat gamblers). And consensus is against saying his win percentage per the 2018 report? In short, consensus is for us to let readers make of the bare 4000 number whatever they will, without any explanation? Of course, saying Trump was more often the plaintiff, or that the biggest chunk was about deadbeat gamblers, or that he had a high win rate, would make Trump look a little better, is that why we have to omit such things and just present a virtually meaningless bare number in both the article body and the lead? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
My was reverted. The revert edit summary stated that "the sources on this prominently mention the amount" and that it is due. However, only one of the three sources mentions it.
I removed the purchase price from the text because we don’t mention the amount due at the time of the bankruptcy, or that it was valued at $325 when it was sold in a complex transaction involving other Trump properties. IMO, none of the amounts are relevant for this top biography, so I again propose to remove it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x, other than the consensus item 40 concerns, what else in this edit do you find objectionable or otherwise not an improvement? I have restored the text outlined in consensus 40, particularly "he believes" wrt the exercise claim, as it needs to be attributed per NPOV and that consensus item.
What I'm posting about here is the grammar of "Much income was in
tax credits for his losses, which let him avoid annual income tax payments or lowered them to $750.
I think that's quite clearly in error. It should read "lower them to $750". The rest of those grammar/style edits I could take or leave. I am only posting about this as a BRD requirement, not to have a long discussion about it. I will happily abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you for any input. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 |
The above discussion has gotten rather complex and messy. I split this new proposal because it seemed to me that a significant point of contention was the rape content, so hopefully, we can quickly achieve consensus on the other content, which are the basic facts, to include in the article first. I invite all editors to weigh in on this discussion to decide what content to include, and where. starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
To make it easier to follow this long unwieldy section, here is a summary of the three questions at hand:— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed text:
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him. [3]
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.
... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: We are not determining here precisely which version of the text should be included. These proposals are rough drafts. The question here is "Should we include this content? and where?" The specifics of "What form should this content take, if included?" are more closely delineated and debated in the " Different versions of the text" section at the bottom. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
POV caption stricken and replaced SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [4] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him. [5]
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for "battery 'when he forcibly raped and groped her' in 1995 or 1996 and for defamation for his October 2022 statement that she "completely made up a story". [6] In May 2023, the jury found Trump liable for battery sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in compensation and damages. [7] He appealed the verdict. [8]
... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ...Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
battery sexual abusephrase intentional? (Just checking!) Also if we're going to say she accused him of rape, I think the npov concerns come up even stronger, because then it makes it look like, in accepting the battery claim, the jury also accepted the rape claim, when it rejected the rape claim and accepted a sexual abuse claim. (For purposes of this discussion I'm using "claim" in a legal sense—a plaintiff's claim against a defendant.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.
... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [1] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. [1] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
He offered three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching.
To find that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that it was more likely than not that Mr. Trump engaged in sexual intercourse by physical force. The judge explained that “any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening” constituted intercourse.
To find that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person, Judge Kaplan said.
Forcible touching, the judge said, “includes squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts.” [1]
But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This section is framed with POV prominence given to the rape text. Here is the alternative:
In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
This fits the longstanding narrative of the article. It should have been posted with equal prominence to get neutral reactions to the proposed choice. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
*Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Could you move this discussion of POV Framing of question, which looks like a subsection, to the discussion section? Otherwise it may be disruptive. Bob K31416 ( talk)
It is the same question being asked by OP... Sorry, just for clarification, are you saying that it's a comment on Part 1?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
25+ mainstream sources showing national and international coverage on content on rape, proving
WP:DUE - starship
|
---|
|
We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article.
"Trump verdict E Jean Carroll" | "Trump Access Hollywood Tape" | |
---|---|---|
Google News: | 111,000 | 4,460 |
Google Scholar: | 7,910 | 10,900 |
Gale OneFile: | 797 | 3,990 |
EBSCO: | 117 | 383 |
Misuse and misunderstanding of search results to support invalid and false conclusion "lies, damned lies, and statistics" as the saying goes, does not tell us anything about due weight for an encyclopedia article. Search results that have survived seven years are highly significant per our 10-year test and this is a strong indication of noteworthiness for an encyclopeda. Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought. This is a baldfaced equivocation and this table is worthless to us. The fact is that with each passing day, a smaller percentage of the secondary and tertiary sources on the trial even mention "rape". The significant fact is that he was found liable for battery and defamation. BTW: Nobody has cited the WP:TERTIARY policy section. That is a strawman. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought
Update Note that with each passing day, there is less mention of "rape" in discussion of the Carroll verdict. It's receded even at Fox, who are now on to bedtime stories about the "Durham Report". The evening of the verdict, Fox blared "Trump exonerated of rape" as its lead story - but I have not heard them say this recently. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
starship .paint ( exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages."), but of course if we lead with "Trump was found liable for", then that will be even harder to do. I also think the second half of the first sentence in part 1 is a bit awkward. (Maybe "
In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s, and for defamation on the basis of Trump's 2022 comment that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.? Idk rough drafts.) But we can nitpick the wording after the RFC.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict. [1]Either with {{Main}} or inline link, depending on location. I agree with TFD that the jury decision is more important than the original complaint, and don't agree with the other proposals. This version is devoid of any "tone" and sufficient until the verdict becomes final or is thrown out by the appeals court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
battery and defamation" is not a good summary. This is not "Legalapedia" it's Wikipedia. We should say "sexual abuse and defamation" as that is what our highest quality RSes say. Otherwise I think @ Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is fine, if perhaps too tersely worded. I would, for example, say "Shortly after, Trump appealed the verdict" or "Trump has appealed the verdict" or similar and remove the "her" in "pay her". I would also include at least one or two more sources since this is a BLP issue and that guideline recommends multiple independent sources on stuff like this. I would combine @ Jerome Frank Disciple's version and your version, STC. E.g. copyedit:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. [2] Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. [3] Trump has appealed the decision. [4]
Sources
|
---|
|
Withdrawn proposal
|
---|
|
if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape findingfair point. I would agree if we use that quote, we should also mention that the jury did not find him liable for that. If we end up leaving out the rape finding, then we could summarize instead as:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. [1] Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. [2] Trump has appealed the decision. [3]
Sources
|
---|
|
Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences.But even more have said that the rape accusation and finding should be included. (I'm also not sure a consensus agree with TFD's argument. In the above discussion, one thing that was repeatedly mentioned was that we should say that a jury found that Carroll didn't prove that Trump had raped her, not that the jury found that Trump didn't rape her. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the other findings?) Now, Iamreallygoodatcheckers suggested a Part I that says the adverse findings and a Part II that says the non adverse finding, but I'm not sure how to phrase that without a lot of awkwardness. Frankly, I don' think it's at all unusual to start with a lawsuit being filed before saying the result of the lawsuit—particularly in a span of 3 sentences.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up".... That's the reason for the defamation claim, but the link isn't made explicit, so readers who don't understand what sexual assault has to do with defamation won't understand it any better. Readers should just be directed to the Carroll v Trump article. "Falsely" is also redundant with mentioning the verdict. Too many words that don't serve any purpose. Strunk wept. DFlhb ( talk) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we proceed with the new structured poll above , or is further discussion better so we agree on options to be polled?
SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This poll is premature and poorly constituted, because it does not address the the crux of the issues raised by editors above. Forcing a discussion into a second structured poll, when the first was premature, will only impede the effort to agree on what text should be added to this article -- which entails NOTNEWS and WEIGHT, rather than how many secondary news sources we can google. Without any disrespect to Starship.paint, this was a bad move, and we can return to any future poll after WP:RFCBEFORE has given us the right structure to find a good solution. Now that we've been asked to go through another poll, we need first to determine whether that is a reasonable way forward at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we include the basic facts?vs.
Should we include the content on rape?- Starship.paint, that's an evaluation right there, i.e., who wouldn't want to include the basic facts. The basic facts for this top bio are that a jury in a civil case found Trump liable for battery and defamation and that he is appealing the verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I, personally, think this is headed towards an RFC, and we should probably discuss what, exactly will be proposed there.
I don't think we need to present the question of where to include the information. Instead, I think we should present options for discussing the lawsuit. Since I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on our own, we should probably stop criticizing each other's proposals, and, instead, each faction should start making sure their view is captured by the proposal we present at an RFC. As a starting matter, I would suggest the following four options be included:
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict.
In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury determined that Carrollestablishedhad proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
From my perspective, Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is the most neutral but also the least informative; Specifico's version is brief and more informative, but the least neutral; my/shibbolethink's version is the most informative but a bit long.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! @ SPECIFICO: reverted this edit [2], and I'd like to open the floor to more discussion.
The passage as it currently stands is in the "Presidency" section. It reads:
As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts have drawn rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, who are concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
It cites two articles from 2017 and one from 2019.
As I see it, the sentence as it currently stands is a mix of present perfect and present tense. But ... why? Based on the years of the sources, it's clear the rebukes that are cited refer to what the paragraph opens with—the disparagement he made "as president". Now, I'm sure some 2020 and maybe 2021 sources could be found re-echoing those points, but is there a present-day continuation that makes present-perfect structure really useful here? I would suggest:
As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts drew rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
SPECIFICO said that this edit "completely changes the meaning of the text". I disagree, but if that's true, then all the more reason for the text to be changed, since neither the 2017 or 2019 articles could possibly be used to support a present-day continuation.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Eliminate "as president". He didn't just do it as president. He disparaged courts and judges as a private citizen, as president, and now again as a private citizen; it is a lifelong habit of his. For just one example, see Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, whom he repeatedly attacked as a "hater" and a "Mexican". -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics
require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly.
Cessaune
[talk]
02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
References
It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.
I don't think we should add the reference to the lead. Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section. We put the references where the same material appears in the text. In this case, the claim is made and supported in the 2016 presidential campaign section, where it says "His campaign statements were often opaque and suggestive,[154] and a record number of them were false.[155][156][157] The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.[158][159]" So the claim that his use of false statements is "unprecedented in modern politics" has five strong references in the body of the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section—this is directly contradicted by MOS:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I think the citation is warranted. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Space4T, what's your objection? Cessaune [talk] 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Welcome. I am an anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas, and a professor at the University of Colorado. I conduct research, write, lecture, and teach. At any given time, I am probably working on one of the following projects: Tibet, British empire, and the Pangdatsang family; the CIA as an ethnographic subject; contemporary US empire; Trump, lies, racism, and political outrage; the self-immolations in Tibet; the Chushi Gangdrug resistance army; refugee citizenship in the Tibetan diaspora (Canada, France, India, Nepal, Switzerland, USA); and, anthropology as theoretical storytelling.
Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source, but this is true only in some cases:
...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.When I read this, it seems to say to me that uncontroversial assertions in the lead don't necessarily need a citation, while any controversial assertions require one, regardless of whether the assertion is in the lead or not.
there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this articlestrikes me as a SNYTHy interpretation of the text. Even if a million sources each cite completely different times in which Trump has lied/falsely asserted/mislead, we still wouldn't be able to directly say "to a degree unprecedented in American politics" based on those statements alone, so an argument that synthesizes information in this way is weak IMO. "Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead"—That's not how it works. There is no count of citations in the body that will ever make up for a lack of citations in the lead when pertaining to controversial statements. Per LEADCITE:
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead(emphasis not mine). I'm challenging it.
The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described...makes me want to gag. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, are you challenging the entire sentence or the part you quoted above, to a degree unprecedented in American politics
? The local agreement on this page was to not use cites in the lead because pretty much every sentence has been flagged as wrong and/or controversial from at least once to more times than I can remember. You, FormalDude,
supported the agreement until you
didn’t, resulting in consensus item 58. So here we are again, deciding what to cite in the lead.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
See also this
MOS discussion: Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point.
I counted more comments opposing than supporting lead cites. The "here" button links to this
comment which, in turn, links to the
DT talk page RfC. The discussion seems to have ended there, without a change to the MOS section whose first and second paragraph seem contradictory to me but what do I know.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If it is that important to you to have a citation, add it. But not the one proposed above. Add this one, which says "unprecedented" right in the headline: [1] It won't be necessary to add the whole reference, since it is already cited twice in the text; just add <ref name="finnegan"/> --Melanie
Sources
|
---|
|
(Moved from my talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, since you posed questions to me in this edit summary, I figured I should respond, but I figured I'd come here since I don't have a problem with your changes. I'm not sure I follow all of your critiques ... I'd say "five" tweets over the course of a few hours is "many"? And by "false theory" ... I meant ... just that. A theory which is false. I thought about saying "false conspiracy theory" but I figured that would attract some edit warring. Either way, I have no problem with those changes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead says he or his companies have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions. According to a reliable book on this general subject, “Statistically, the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, ranging from employment disputes to consumer injuries, copyright violations and contract performances.”* I’d remove the “4,000” number from the lead because it’s devoid of such context, it doesn’t even hint that almost half of those 4,000 cases were in regards to Trump’s casinos, with the overwhelming majority of those lawsuits brought by Trump, rather than brought against him. Is there a single article at Wikipedia about any American business that gives the number of that company’s legal cases in the lead? If there is such a lead at Wikipedia (I doubt it) then let’s see if it provides some context instead of just a contextless number.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Close to half the court cases involving Trump and his businesses over the last three decades involved his casinos. About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts.
He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn'tand I responded with an article exactly on point. Where did I contend that
Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions.[1] In 2016, USA Today found that Trump or his entities were involved in more lawsuits than five other well-known real estate scions combined, with most of the lawsuits relating to debtors of Trump's casinos. Among the cases with a "clear resolution", the paper determined that Trump was the victor in 451 lawsuits and the loser in 38.[2]
References
[1] "Donald Trump: Three decades, 4,095 lawsuits". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
[2]Penzenstadler, Nick; Page, Susan (June 1, 2016). "Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee". USA Today.
Withdrawn suggestion
|
---|
|
The problem is that, presumably, the other five "real estate scions" are probably not heavily involved with hotels and casinos, which generate more lawsuits than other types of real estate investments. Cullen328 ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions,[1] with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to the pursuit of the debtors of Trump's casinos.[2]
Can't find my way through the jungle, responding to There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example
. By May 2020, most of it was gone, and by October, all of it, and the website was at 498,000 bytes.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
13:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Back to discussion of text in body
I am basically okay with the draft language for the article body but would tweak it a little:
According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions,[1] with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers.[2]
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legl actions, including six bankruptcies.
is the current text and is the best among any proposed in this discussion. There's no reason to attribute to the RS that reported public record information and there's no reason to delete the modest number of bankruptcies or to get into the causes of the actions. This top-level bio provides links with all salient detail. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Been down this road before, adding link to
January discussion and copying my responses from that discussion: "According to
USA Today, [t]he sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements
, and he was involved in more lawsuits than five top real-estate business executives combined: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
Due to the size of this article, I haven't added this USA Today article, used in the main article
Legal affairs of Donald Trump, to the USA Today lawsuit tally we do use." "Do any RS say that lawsuits concerning the casinos don’t count? Operating casinos was one of his businesses, and extending credit to gamblers was a business decision — a bad bet, as indicated by the lawsuits and the bankruptcies. The House doesn’t win if the customers gamble with the House’s money, unless you’re the mob laundering money obtained elsewhere. Follow the link in the text to
another USA Today article, Trump casino empire dogged by bad bets in Atlantic City, for more information."
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Question for the people proposing to change the wording: this thread starts off with a quote that the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces faces 556 lawsuits per year
. So, where are the sources saying that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk)
10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
According to a report in USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions. The largest portion of those lawsuits, roughly 1,600 of them, related to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers." (footnotes omitted). Why do you prefer a one-sentence paragraph that will suggest many different things to many different readers, such as that he's been sued 4000 times, he can't stay out of trouble, he's been in court way too much, etc etc? The paragraph in question currently says, "
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
More questions: are there any sources saying that it is routine (or was routine back when Trump owned them) for other casinos suing gamblers they've extended credit to? Or any sources on casinos having to declare bankruptcy or file for Chapter 11 protection? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done? SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Based on the above discussion, there are two questions regarding the lawsuits figure that's currently presented twice in the article. Currently, in the lead, the article says:
Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.
and, later, in the legal affairs section, the article says, in a single-sentence paragraph:
Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today.
The source cited is this (admittedly awesome) USA Today graphic counter the really cool USA Today graphic story. There's no date on the counter (it's hard to tell if it's still updated), but USA Today also ran a story in 2016, when the graphic was first released, and the count was 3500 lawsuits.
@ Anythingyouwant: has argued that the number, alone, is misleading, and suggests removing the number from the lead and adding context to the second mention. Specifically, Anythingyouwant thinks the 4000 number is misleading because it makes it appear that Trump or his entities were the target of 4000 lawsuits, when that's far from the case. According to the USA Today graphic, the 4000 number combines cases in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a plaintiff and in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a defendant. A plurality of the lawsuits—more than 1600—were actually lawsuits against Trump casinos' debtors. And, in cases that reached a conclusion, Trump or the Trump entity prevailed 451 times and lost 38 times. Absent at least some of that context, Anythingyouwant supports removal of the text from the article. So, the questions are:
Pinging editors already involved: @ Cullen328, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Anythingyouwant, SPECIFICO, and Objective3000:: Hello! I'm segmenting off thissection so we can all say our peace in a single point, without getting trapped in reply chains, and so that other editors can chip in a bit more easily :)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire". But, if anything, that comment made me more concerned. In reality, there's not an inherent connection between how often an entity is involved in lawsuits and whether that entity is well run: consider insurance corporations, which are named as defendants in thousands of suits—it's just the nature of their game. (And, of course, a well-run business initiates lawsuits all the time!) I'm okay with adding both the above figures (the casino-plaintiff number and the wins/losses number) to the article, but I'm torn about the wins/losses number because, based on my own knowledge, I think that figure is misleading (the problem is the selection bias in restricting the sample to cases with a clear outcome). But the casino-plaintiff figure is an additional piece of information that does provide more context to the 4000 number and concerns a huge percentage—40%!—of those lawsuits. Finally, I think we should keep the figure in the body even if the context isn't added, as the frequency with which Trump was involved with lawsuits was noted by several media entities. See: Slate, BBC, CNN, GQ.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This BLP says:
According to a review of state and federal court files conducted by USA Today in 2018, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions.[116]
Do I understand correctly that the consensus is against saying whether his side was plaintiff more often than defendant in those cases discussed by USA Today in 2018? This 2018 report by USA Today adds up to 2121 as plaintiff versus 1929 as defendant. Also, is it correct that consensus is against saying what the largest chunk of cases was about (i.e. casinos suing deadbeat gamblers). And consensus is against saying his win percentage per the 2018 report? In short, consensus is for us to let readers make of the bare 4000 number whatever they will, without any explanation? Of course, saying Trump was more often the plaintiff, or that the biggest chunk was about deadbeat gamblers, or that he had a high win rate, would make Trump look a little better, is that why we have to omit such things and just present a virtually meaningless bare number in both the article body and the lead? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
My was reverted. The revert edit summary stated that "the sources on this prominently mention the amount" and that it is due. However, only one of the three sources mentions it.
I removed the purchase price from the text because we don’t mention the amount due at the time of the bankruptcy, or that it was valued at $325 when it was sold in a complex transaction involving other Trump properties. IMO, none of the amounts are relevant for this top biography, so I again propose to remove it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x, other than the consensus item 40 concerns, what else in this edit do you find objectionable or otherwise not an improvement? I have restored the text outlined in consensus 40, particularly "he believes" wrt the exercise claim, as it needs to be attributed per NPOV and that consensus item.
What I'm posting about here is the grammar of "Much income was in
tax credits for his losses, which let him avoid annual income tax payments or lowered them to $750.
I think that's quite clearly in error. It should read "lower them to $750". The rest of those grammar/style edits I could take or leave. I am only posting about this as a BRD requirement, not to have a long discussion about it. I will happily abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you for any input. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)