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 155 | ← | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | → | Archive 165 |
Donald Trump won election to Hubbard fire district through write-in votes. If he had nominated for the election, this would be included in the article. Since the election would not be noteworthy otherwise, the connection to Trump in that instance would render it noteworthy for inclusion. I would argue that a write-in campaign, even one unbeknownst to the candidate, provides a similar connection rendering it worthy of inclusion in the article of the person who was elected. Therefore, I feel this election should be included in the post-presidency section. Alextheconservative ( talk) 10:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I know there has been some debate about whether the current audio file is super relevant to his presidency as a whole or not so I thought I'd provide another option for a more relevant piece if it is deemed preferable. The audio file presented is of Donald Trump's presidential address to the Nation following the announcment of the Covid-19 pandemic as a worldwide pandemic by the WHO. Given the pandemic was likely the most notable event to occur during his presidency (with maybe the exception of January 6th) I don't think there should be any debate as to whether it's notable or not. If others believe that the current audio file is fine that's also fine with me. I just know there was some initial concern about relevance to his presidency as a whole so I thought I'd provide a potential replacement if consensus is reached in that regard. the file is as follows:
Donald Trump speaks on declaration of Covid-19 as a Global Pandemic by the World Health Organization.ogg
The date of recording was March 11, 2020 LosPajaros ( talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Opportunity Zones should be added to the presidency part of bio the trump admin did 9,000 opportunity zones for low income areas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/business/tax-bill-economic-recovery-opportunity-zones.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Among the early beneficiaries of the tax incentive are billionaire financiers like Leon Cooperman and business magnates like Sidney Kohl — and Mr. Trump’s family members and advisers.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The Right to Try act should be added to the bio as it gave access to experimental treatment for terminally ill patients who without the right to try act could not even try to benefit from experimental treatments.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/30/politics/right-to-try-donald-trump/index.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards.Additionally,
Right to Try does not actually give patients the right to try any unapproved drug they wish to try. Instead, it gives them the right to request access to an unapproved drug from the company that makes it, without having to go through the FDA. Bypassing the FDA does not necessarily mean that such access will be granted.. Also Bloomberg Law, CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The first step act should be added
It was a great bi-partisan achievement and is worthy of mention. 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
the most significant [federal] criminal justice reform legislation in years"Vox. That said, Trump's relationship to the Act is complicated, as noted by several sources, including this recent Semafor article: Donald Trump used to brag about the First Step Act. Not any more.
anti-marijuana position ... got significantly less attention than the First Step Act, how many of the incarcerated drug offenders are incarcerated for cannabis?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
individuals that have cannabis offenses treated as secondary offense" ... but, except to the portion of a sentence that's exclusively attributable to the marijuana offense, those persons would be incarcerated anyway.) Also, even more significantly, Trump's personal opposition to marijuana would have very little to do with the vast majority of the persons incarcerated for marijuana. Trump's unilateral action would only affect a small fraction of the number incarcerated—as Biden's pardon showed. (Granted, even Biden refused to pardon persons accused of selling or distributing marijuana.) As The Marshall Project reported: "
As far as bold acts of mass clemency go, [Biden's pardon] won’t lead to many people getting out of prison. In fact, it will lead to none. According to the White House and a report this week from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana."
"Trump lost tree of his 15 original cabinet members within his first year."
requesting that "tree" be changed to "three". 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB ( talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO:, can you explain how "more than once" changes the meaning in a way that doesn't make the statement "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached [twice / more than once]" more accurate? [1]-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
"Twice", would be less wordy & still get the info across. GoodDay ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to include a sentence in the lead mentioning Trump's political influence on (and the continued support of) the GOP, perhaps immediately after Since leaving office, Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party.
. I think phrasing needs to be careful and I am open to suggestions, but the partisan divide continues to be staggering, to say the least, and it seems there are a lot of reliable sources discussing his lasting impact on Republicans to warrant inclusion (and this is despite all scandals, trials, and poor midterm performance). Some examples below.
Newspaper and magazine articles
Scholarly article
Ppt91 talk 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 6th paragraph contains the following incorrect statement: "On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."
Discussion: The false part is "resulting in multiple death". Actually, there was only one death attributed to the events at the Capitol that day, that of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt, shot to death by a Capitol police officer. if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source. Here is a source for Ashli Babbitt's death in the Capitol that day. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashli-babbitt-killed-capitol-riot-family-lawsuit/
Please correct the erroneous statement as follows, along with a separate sentence on the vote count for clarity:
"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in one death. That of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt by gunshot from a Capitol police officer. The electoral vote count was interrupting temporarily." 74.203.170.226 ( talk) 19:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source—The sources have already been cited in the article text; see Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack, where it says: "According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died." a) there are already two cites for this assertion and b) we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice. If you disagree with the Department of Justice, or think that we shouldn't be uing the DOJ as our source, then that's a different problem entirely. Since we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice, the statement can't be "incorrect", as it isn't our own opinion. You can in fact argue about the reliability of the DOJ's statement, but, again, there was a lengthy discussion on this recently, and the text is unlikely to change. Cessaune [talk] 22:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
disingenuous and unnecessaryand outrageous. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
temporary interruption, claiming this was the
only death, using the term
protestorand adding the word
unarmedwhile pointing to an article titled
Family of Ashli Babbitt, woman shot by officer during Capitol riot, says it was murder and plans to sue for wrongful death, this one-edit-user looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. The discussion was answered and I think it would have been better to let it remain that way, so I attempted to squelch it. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. You then attempted to shut them down with that idea in mind, without trying to meaningfully engage or explain, without providing sources, without providing any links to any relevant material, or alluding to any material at all that didn't just simply come from your brain, suggesting to any reasonable and uninformed person that this info that you've pulled out of nowhere is not to be trusted. The way you went about doing this was to characterize the events of Jan 6, tying them back in a sorta SYNTHy way to Babbitt in an attempt to prove your point. The fact that a pipe bomb was brought to the Capitol and the fact that Ashli Babbit was shot while climbing through a window are a) not the same event and b) not connected in any simple way; a connection between such events that would demonstrate your point to the degree that you would like (both being relevant to Jan 6 is not enough) cannot simply be asserted without a source. And, in the pursuit of quickly shutting down a discussion, I think you failed to adhere to two very simple rules:
Civility doesn’t just mean not being the asshole. It also means being reasonably polite to the asshole.If we consider the IP the aforementioned "asshole", then this boils down to treat others with greater respect that they treat you with. I don't think that you adhered to this.
...never put any advice to editors on your user page as they will surely accuse you of not following your own advice.Cessaune [talk] 19:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No need to leave this in the edit queue. Xan747 ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Still Not done: This section would look at lot better with a hat on. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Re: this edit from @ Ppt91 which was reverted by @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: adding the names of the supreme court justices Trump appointed to the lead. I think these names are clearly DUE and agree with Ppt91. We have precedent from George W. Bush, a GA. We have many multiple overviews of Trump's presidency mentioning these appointments as key to the impact Trump will have over the next several decades: [2] [3] [4] [5]. A zillion and a half longform large-scale overview pieces have been written focussed on specifically these appointments: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the other presidential articles say in the lead how many appellate court judges the person appointed. But they do name the Supreme Court justices who were appointed. I propose to change the current sentence here - "He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three U.S. Supreme Court justices." - to "He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court." That is the exact format used in other recent presidential articles - not just George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but also Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input, all. I went ahead and changed it in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Request other opinions on this exchange.
The pageant was removed from the lead in this edit. I agree with the editor's summary that it's not leadworthy, not in this long lead. Miss Universe mentions Trump in two short paragraphs in the "History" section, as owner/co-owner for 19 years in the pageant's 71-year history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The Miss Universe bit, should be excluded from the lead. He's better known for having been President of the United States. GoodDay ( talk) 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand who is proposing what. The status quo ante is the current one:
He expanded its operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice.
Side ventures include the NJ Generals, greenmailing, Trump Shuttle, Miss Universe, Trump University. The Apprentice is the only one of his forays into film (cameos), television (cameos, WWE), and radio (call-ins to Howard Stern, etc.) that we mention in the lead because that’s the one that "made him a star", or whatever. His role-playing on WWE, his film and TV cameos, his call-ins to radio shows etc. are mentioned in the body ( Donald Trump#Film and television with a link to the main article Media career of Donald Trump) but do they belong in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor removed the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template from the article a month ago, resulting in the "work" parameter being replaced by "newspaper" for a couple of newspapers but not for several others. (I wonder whether someone sicced the bot on George Santos where CNN, ABC, NBC, Politico, Talking Points Memo were all called "newspaper" ( [14]).) The previous discussion involved three editors, one opposed to and one supporting the template, one unclear ("should probably be discussed at community level" but they stopped caring about it). According to the bot’s user talk page, it’s a feature. IMO, on this page the argument that "newspaper is clear while work is not" doesn’t amount to much when it results in one in five newspapers having the parameter "newspaper", the other four having "work", and the output for the reader being exactly the same. The frequency of citation bot activity on this page has increased to less than 24 hours: June 9, June 25, June 26, July 4, July 6, July 7, July 8, July 9 Any objections to me reinserting the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
582 bytes of non-improvement in this long article, but this article's size problems are more about rendered length than about file size. The parameter name changes add nothing to rendered length, and the 0.13% increase in file size is not a significant problem. Remember, the latter has zero effect on readers, since they don't access the raw file that we edit.I "stopped caring" about this issue because I was tired of fighting an endless parade of human editors who had nothing better to do than go around changing parameter names with no effect on the rendered articles. That was before Citation bot started doing this. I didn't stop having an opinion; I decided I had better things to occupy my time. And now I'm 99%-retired and doing my best to avoid controversial, time-consuming issues.I'd suggest an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (in my opinion, the CS1/CS2 talk pages do not attract enough participation to establish community consensus on issues that are controversial and affect all editors). In the meantime, I'd let Citation bot have its way. This is not a battle for articles or article talk pages. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following line in the Wiki entry is inaccurate: "He considers exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29]"
This is not what the source cited says. Trump said, specifically, that he believes TOO MUCH exercise depletes the body's energy, not just exercise.
The corrected line should be:
He considers too much exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29] Metallix87 ( talk) 23:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The whole article reads like a political piece written by democrats? Every single paragraph except the first two have wording saying that trump either missinformed, failed to keep a promise, or was accused of a crime. Sentence after sentence after sentence against him. Not a single sentence saying that he did anything viewed as okay or fine.
Every piece of neutral information about a policy or action is followed by a "however" or a "instead" and a sentence to explain why the policy or action should be seen as bad
I know nothing is going to change here. At least you kept the rapist claims outside of the lead so props for having some decency. 2A02:8084:D021:A900:50A9:4432:31C7:526D ( talk) 22:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, in this section of the article, it is UNDUE to state that Trump denied such behavior in 2016, especially with respect to, and in light of, subsequent allegations. The reinserted text does not reflect the narrative the cited source. SpaceX correctly removed it, and it should not have been reinserted without affirmative consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." As the closer said: "There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1, namely including denials if they exist, as it received more !votes than everything else combined."
At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants."
In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people. [1]
these edits are premature. No consensus for this amid ongoing discussion. They should be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Pure Vice News, Trump "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them
."
[15] Also, the exact date that he denied some portion of the allegations seems to be a minor aspect. As such, I removed the year and restriction on number (e.g. instead of saying "In 2016, he denied six" ... just saying "He denied them")--
Jerome Frank Disciple 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Are all in agreement, on the wording? GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants." There's no line in WP:DENIALS that says "but only if the allegation is really specific!!!" As if Wikipedia policy would ever say "A rape accusation doesn't trigger WP:DENIAL unless it's REAL VIVID." That's absurd, and it's made up. Also, the vast majority of sources that report the allegations also report the denial. So, from my perspective, there's no DUE issue.
It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content." For someone who hasn't provided any sources showing that his denials are not included, that sounds a lot like "I don't want to have to do any work to support the position I'm taking." While I'm a bit skeptical of the "include the denial of whatever number of allegations the majority of sources say he denied" rule that @ GoodDay has suggested, it notably has nothing to do with anything you said above. Your original research analysis of how secondary sources present the denials is fascinating, but I'm not sure what it has to do with WP:DENIALS.
Trump has denied all of the allegationsinstead of
denied the allegationsviolates WP:IMPARTIAL (neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him".
Trump has repeatedly denied any accusations of sexual assault
has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them".
Trump denied the accusationsas the neutral, brief, and clearly expressed version. I can live with "allegations" if I must, but I don't like the word in this context. The women alleged, he denied — when he's alleging, too (i.e., they lied). "Accused" and "denied" is neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
[o]ther article pages, where specific allegations are described" -- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
bobbed and weavedin his "denials", that should cancel out the other instances in which Trump has, as you put it, "
denied anything and everything". I don't see anyone who's been persuaded by that argument. I'll leave it to others to try to persuade you or you to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or start an RFC, as you deem appropriate.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We do not count votes on WP. Not clear the count is accurate, either. I see you misrepresenting the concern I have stated above and not attempting to resolve or rebut it. There is no rush. Please give editors some time for research and reflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.
In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars." Second, this is a far less significant issue, but I'm a bit skeptical of paraphrasing that he called the accusers liars to "disparaging", for the same reason that I'd be a bit skeptical of saying "26 women have disparaged Trump by saying that he ...."-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations ...." (emphasis added).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars."
provides a compact compromise that notes the denials while contextualizing them just barely enough so as not to be misleading - thus addressing the concerns of editors above without fully omitting "denials" per MANDY. The context, widely noted in RS is the use of his friends, allies, and employees to speak for him on matters of which they have no knowledge and the ongoing misogynistic framing disparagement and personal attacks on the women who came forward. I don't think ridiculous, Christ, supposedly, etc. invalidates this proposed compromise. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.
"Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity," Hope Hicks, the president's then-spokeswoman and current White House communications director, told the Post in October 2016. "It is totally ridiculous."[19]
Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars.
As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.
Yikes.
Since it's obvious that the editors agreeing with SPECIFICO's point of view are in the vast minority, what is the point of even continuing this discussion? Use an RS or two above to substantiate/verify the claim that Trump denied the allegations and close this thread, please. I have no strong opinion as to the underlying question, but there is really no value in dragging on an argument about something so minor.
Cessaune
[talk] 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO,
this was the long-standing version: In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.
I removed the sentence
here and — naturally — got reverted
here. I then removed the second clause
here, followed by Starlighsky's edits, etc. The current cite for the sentence, the 2020 Guardian article, was in the paragraph all along, used as the cite for the first sentence.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump denied the allegations/accusations" line is sufficient.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has denied all the accusations/allegations." That's it. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has denied all accusationsis sufficient. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
... attacks and smears in his responses." — That is a very good point.To say "Trump denied all the allegations" is a concise and sufficient summary of his denials as such. But that he conjoined these with the sort of counter-accusations as to lose him a defamation lawsuit and cost him millions of dollars is significant, speaks to personality (or what used to be called "character"), and deserves mention. – .Raven .talk 18:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The brief text with references cited above (tertiary and more recent than the former 2017 source) needs to be written and put in place. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We currently say "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." in the lead section. How many protests are needed before including this as an important statement in the lead? I looked up at the entry for George W. Bush, who also had numerous protests, and this was not included in his lead section. Forich ( talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The facts (huge, peaceful demonstrations) haven't changed. "Policies" refers to the things he said during the campaign (second sentence of the lead paragraph,Trump's election victory sparked protests in major U.S. cities in the days following the election. [1] [2] On the day after Trump's inauguration, an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide, including an estimated half million in Washington, D.C., protested against Trump in the Women's Marches. [3]
During that campaign, Trump's political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert at first line:
{{Current related|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case)|Date=2 August 2023}}
IntUnderflow (
talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is clearly an extremely partisan biography, it should embarrass the writers and editors, quite frankly. Please reread it. I say this a non American with no specific interests in your internal politics. 78.150.101.116 ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
A minor change, but considering what Trump said, wouldn't it make sense to remove the "without their consent" line from the following:
" Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." "
My point is that taking the statement as a whole, it isn't exactly clear if he was bragging about groping woman without their consent. In fact, one could argue the "they let you do it" part of the quote implies there was consent. At the very least it's ambiguous, and I think "Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women" followed by what he said should suffice as a neutral statement. 174.7.15.203 ( talk) 09:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
"I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy."That doesn't sound as though he's waited for consent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Trump talked about kissing women and grabbing them between their legs (using far cruder language) without permission.
Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone...
On his last evening in office Trump gave clemency to Eliyahu Weinstein, a used car salesman who had run a Ponzi scheme that stole almost a quarter of a billion dollars, and who had been ordered by a federal judge to forfeit that money, plus pay over $6 million more in restitution. The guy had continued to swindle while he was out on bail awaiting sentencing. Trump cut 16 years off his 24-year sentence. He was represented in his clemency application by Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz and paid a former Ted Cruz staffer lobbyist to lean on Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the clemency matter. His clemency application was supported by New Jersey Democrat-turned-Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew and by Q-Anon conspiracist Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, (who had also made inquiries with Meadows about a "January 6th" pardon for himself), as well as additional now-ex-congressmen. On release, he concealed his assets to avoid paying restitution, then engaged in another Ponzi scheme that netted $35 million more for which he was rearrested yesterday. My edit covering Trump's executive action was reverted. I disagree strongly and submit its retention to other editors for further discussion. Activist ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the guy re-offendedSure. But that's an ad-hoc rationale for why this is due. It's trivial to find a good-sounding ad-hoc rationale for every possible addition. But the article is already extremely long at 17k words (the informal Featured Article "limit" is usually 10k word nowadays), and this goes against summary-style, since it's not an essential aspect of his presidency. 30% of mobile visitors read nothing but the lead. The more cruft we add, the more people skim or quickly close the tab, and don't stick around for the important stuff. DFlhb ( talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I noticed in the lede it says "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden". Shouldn't this be something more akin to "Biden and his family"? Since it was moreso about Hunter, if anything. Thanks. Just suggesting. conman33 ( . . .talk) 04:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump is the subject of no less than 4 criminal investigations for various acts ranging from incitement of insurrection and high treason to the paying off of his hookers with campaign funds to the theft of classified documents for nefarious purposes to the attempt to overthrow US democracy by force and install himself as unelected dictator Yet this article has apparently so thoroughly been infiltrated by Trumpian propagandists that these facts, which are sadly all too well known, are buried until the final words of the lede. We place the shocking fact Trump and his businesses have been the subject of over 4,0000 civil lawsuits in paragraph 2. Although I believe Trump’s crimes and misdemeanors should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, I will graciously compromise with the Trumpists and propose they be placed in paragraph 2 next to the mention of Trump’s civil infractions. 67.85.99.134 ( talk) 16:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." is false due to recency bias. This means that we do not know the effects of his presidency until 5-10 years after. He also has the ability to become president again, so I believe it is not appropriate to make this claim. My edit would be to remove the sentence. Joecompan ( talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a proposal to remove the following sentence from the third paragraph of the lead:
His election and policies sparked numerous protests.
The sentence was added to the lead per consensus #20, based on these discussions: June 2017 and May 2018. I don't see that the editors who supported the removal were aware of consensus #20 or took it into account, and at least one of them thought the sentence was about the BLM protests in 2020 (His election seems fairly clear to me). I've reverted the premature removal of the sentence. Should consensus #20 and the sentence in the lead be removed? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "He was then indicted later that month by a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury on multiple counts for efforts to allegedly overthrow the results in that state." after "In August, a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury indicted him on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election." TheCelebrinator ( talk) 03:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The current first paragraph mentions his activities as a media personality and his business activities. In the last few years Trump has become better known for being at the centre of numerous investigations and criminal cases than his former career as a media personality nearly a decade ago. When the media has discussed Trump since he left the presidency, it has very often been related to the investigations of him. It would be reasonable to mention something about the criminal investigations that now engulf him. For example something like this:
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. Since leaving the presidency he has been the subject of several criminal investigations.
--
Tataral (
talk) 11:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: was the conensus list a novel idea first implemented on this page or was it adapted from another page? Thanks in advance. Cessaune [talk] 02:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
Consensus}}
template, which is used in many other article talk pages. It then underwent a number of evolutionary changes that were unique to this page. At some point it became a section on the page, which (1) increased its visibility by adding it to the table of contents and (2) provided a target for section links on this page and in article edit summaries. Later, the section became a separate, transcluded page to allow for edit protection. ―
Mandruss
☎ 08:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)@ FMSky: why?. You didn't provide an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I was about to delete the sentence Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan was assigned to the case
with cite when I noticed that I had accidentally removed it in an
earlier edit. The reason is the same as the mention of Judge Cannon that I
removed just now, i.e., there will be at least six criminal cases with six judges, and at the moment their names don't seem relevant details for Trump’s top bio. We can add them if that changes.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Tataral: This "standard move" isn't as dramatic as your two sentences with seven cites and the sentence in the lead made it appear. The prosecutors at the special counsel's office and Trump's counsel will be filing more motions. That might have a place at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) but not here. I haven't removed the sentence from the lead yet (3RR). WP:NOTNEWS and consensus #37 (summary-level) apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Alma Mater box say "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" rather than "Wharton School (BS Econ.)"? GreenFrogsGoRibbit ( talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Make sure that all relevant WP:RFCBEFORE suggestions have been tried.As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been done. Let's just have a normal discussion. Cessaune [talk] 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't residence in the Infobox include Trump National Golf Club Bedminster? He spends summers there and says he wants to be buried there. JonathanDP81 ( talk) 02:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the "one of the worst presidents by historians" part should be changed to "he is ranked poorly by historians, normally near the bottom ". It sounds less biased in my opinion TRJ2008 ( talk) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been asked, by way of a message on my talk page, to close Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 157#Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. I have no objection to doing this, and if nobody else minds, then I'll proceed to do so. I'm not American, I've never set foot in the US, I don't follow US politics, and I think I'm neutral and uninvolved. But it's a little unusual for a discussion participant to choose their own closer, so it's right for me to give people on this talk page a chance to raise any concerns or objections they might have before I start doing all the required reading. If you'd like to check my previous closes for any hint of bias, you're welcome to review User:S Marshall/RfC close log. I intend to leave this note here for a few days, and I will recuse from closing on request from any good faith, established editor (by which I mean any editor who's autoconfirmed as of this timestamp and not under any admin-imposed sanctions).— S Marshall T/ C 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
proper close: don’t you mean "formal"? Looks to me as though everyone involved decided to WP:DISENGAGE and live with the status quo ante, preferring no mention to "the wrong one". I kind of assume that during the month the closure request was open a number of potential closers took a look at the discussion and said "not with a ten-foot pole". By that time, the discussion had been closed for over 7 weeks and buried (archived) for 5 weeks.
a new trial on damages or grant remittitur because contrary to Plaintiff's claim of rape, the Jury found that she was not raped but was sexually abused by Defendant".The judge denied the request and clarified the judgment.
"Instead," the judge wrote, "the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of 'rape' to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," the ruling said.In the meantime, we’ve added the section Federal and state criminal cases against Trump and in January, at the latest, will probably add a section on the civil cases (at least three I know of, Carroll II and ACN scheduled for January, NY tax case unknown date), so I personally wouldn’t want to pet-sematary the discussion that stopped almost 3 months ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The last comment was three months ago, the discussion is already four archive pages deep. The discussion is out of date, IMO - see my earlier edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@ S Marshall: Do you have any figures or a personal estimate of the relative frequency of close challenges to Trump-related discussions? I do not recall that having been the case, nor do I expect it generally to be the case in the future. Thanks for your efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Inmate No. P01135809 12.186.19.242 ( talk) 00:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This bill should be mentioned as it was heavily supported by the Trump Admin and made intentional acts of animal cruelty a federal crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/trump-animal-cruelty-bill.html 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether someone “thinks” this is “cool” is entirely irrelevant as a criterion for inclusion. This is already a very long article, which makes it difficult enough to find important information. Padding the article further with trivial matters like this will only make things worse. TheScotch ( talk) 13:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current image in the infobox for Donald Trump is his official presidential portrait taken in 2017. This photo is directly associated with his term as President of the United States; a bygone era. The man has been in the public eye long before the beginning of his presidential campaign, and still is now well into the Biden administration. Therefore, the current image is no longer representative of his place in the world, and has not been since January of 2021. Currently, a more relevant image would be the mugshot taken by Fulton County Jail. This benefits from its recency, as well as its relation to current events concerning Donald Trump. IanTaggart1215 ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.I think putting the mugshot in the infobox is intentional to present him in a disparaging light, or at least does so enough to run afoul of WP:NPOV. Put it in the appropriate section on the indictment but keep the infobox photo as is. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump/Archive 160 | |
---|---|
While I would personally be happy to see the mugshot replace the official photograph, WP:MUGSHOT applies here, and it can't be done. However, it's entirely reasonable to look for a more recent photograph than the 2017 one, which is a carefully chosen, lit and posed (and quite possibly also retouched) official photograph intended to portray Trump in the most favorable possible light. Trump now looks very little like that photograph, and a more realistic photograph would be appropriate. — The Anome ( talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's no general assumption that mugshots are public domain. Works created by Federal agencies (in the course of their duties) are usually public domain. The states of Florida and California also have provisions which make their mugshots usually public domain (that probably covers the majority of existing mugshots), and there's a few other quirks in the system. However there's no indication at this time that images from Fulton County Sheriff's Office or the State of Georgia are public domain. Our Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline requires that a rationale is provided for each article that a non-free image is used in. There's currently no rationale listed at File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg for its usage in this article, and it will keep getting removed entirely until one is provided. Other things aside, when you consider a rationale, it's not going to be for identification of the subject at the top of the article; it's going to be in some sub-section about his current predicament. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s).We're linking to the current version, and the image is at Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump, so we're complying with applicable WP rules, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
posed portrait, prepped by a makeup artist who most likely flew with him on the plane to secure the hair with extreme aerosol" should be the infobox photo. Otherwise, I don't see why this exchange should continue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:31, 25 August 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 155 | ← | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | → | Archive 165 |
Donald Trump won election to Hubbard fire district through write-in votes. If he had nominated for the election, this would be included in the article. Since the election would not be noteworthy otherwise, the connection to Trump in that instance would render it noteworthy for inclusion. I would argue that a write-in campaign, even one unbeknownst to the candidate, provides a similar connection rendering it worthy of inclusion in the article of the person who was elected. Therefore, I feel this election should be included in the post-presidency section. Alextheconservative ( talk) 10:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I know there has been some debate about whether the current audio file is super relevant to his presidency as a whole or not so I thought I'd provide another option for a more relevant piece if it is deemed preferable. The audio file presented is of Donald Trump's presidential address to the Nation following the announcment of the Covid-19 pandemic as a worldwide pandemic by the WHO. Given the pandemic was likely the most notable event to occur during his presidency (with maybe the exception of January 6th) I don't think there should be any debate as to whether it's notable or not. If others believe that the current audio file is fine that's also fine with me. I just know there was some initial concern about relevance to his presidency as a whole so I thought I'd provide a potential replacement if consensus is reached in that regard. the file is as follows:
Donald Trump speaks on declaration of Covid-19 as a Global Pandemic by the World Health Organization.ogg
The date of recording was March 11, 2020 LosPajaros ( talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Opportunity Zones should be added to the presidency part of bio the trump admin did 9,000 opportunity zones for low income areas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/business/tax-bill-economic-recovery-opportunity-zones.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Among the early beneficiaries of the tax incentive are billionaire financiers like Leon Cooperman and business magnates like Sidney Kohl — and Mr. Trump’s family members and advisers.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The Right to Try act should be added to the bio as it gave access to experimental treatment for terminally ill patients who without the right to try act could not even try to benefit from experimental treatments.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/30/politics/right-to-try-donald-trump/index.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards.Additionally,
Right to Try does not actually give patients the right to try any unapproved drug they wish to try. Instead, it gives them the right to request access to an unapproved drug from the company that makes it, without having to go through the FDA. Bypassing the FDA does not necessarily mean that such access will be granted.. Also Bloomberg Law, CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The first step act should be added
It was a great bi-partisan achievement and is worthy of mention. 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
the most significant [federal] criminal justice reform legislation in years"Vox. That said, Trump's relationship to the Act is complicated, as noted by several sources, including this recent Semafor article: Donald Trump used to brag about the First Step Act. Not any more.
anti-marijuana position ... got significantly less attention than the First Step Act, how many of the incarcerated drug offenders are incarcerated for cannabis?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
individuals that have cannabis offenses treated as secondary offense" ... but, except to the portion of a sentence that's exclusively attributable to the marijuana offense, those persons would be incarcerated anyway.) Also, even more significantly, Trump's personal opposition to marijuana would have very little to do with the vast majority of the persons incarcerated for marijuana. Trump's unilateral action would only affect a small fraction of the number incarcerated—as Biden's pardon showed. (Granted, even Biden refused to pardon persons accused of selling or distributing marijuana.) As The Marshall Project reported: "
As far as bold acts of mass clemency go, [Biden's pardon] won’t lead to many people getting out of prison. In fact, it will lead to none. According to the White House and a report this week from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana."
"Trump lost tree of his 15 original cabinet members within his first year."
requesting that "tree" be changed to "three". 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB ( talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO:, can you explain how "more than once" changes the meaning in a way that doesn't make the statement "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached [twice / more than once]" more accurate? [1]-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
"Twice", would be less wordy & still get the info across. GoodDay ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to include a sentence in the lead mentioning Trump's political influence on (and the continued support of) the GOP, perhaps immediately after Since leaving office, Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party.
. I think phrasing needs to be careful and I am open to suggestions, but the partisan divide continues to be staggering, to say the least, and it seems there are a lot of reliable sources discussing his lasting impact on Republicans to warrant inclusion (and this is despite all scandals, trials, and poor midterm performance). Some examples below.
Newspaper and magazine articles
Scholarly article
Ppt91 talk 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The 6th paragraph contains the following incorrect statement: "On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."
Discussion: The false part is "resulting in multiple death". Actually, there was only one death attributed to the events at the Capitol that day, that of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt, shot to death by a Capitol police officer. if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source. Here is a source for Ashli Babbitt's death in the Capitol that day. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashli-babbitt-killed-capitol-riot-family-lawsuit/
Please correct the erroneous statement as follows, along with a separate sentence on the vote count for clarity:
"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in one death. That of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt by gunshot from a Capitol police officer. The electoral vote count was interrupting temporarily." 74.203.170.226 ( talk) 19:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source—The sources have already been cited in the article text; see Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack, where it says: "According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died." a) there are already two cites for this assertion and b) we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice. If you disagree with the Department of Justice, or think that we shouldn't be uing the DOJ as our source, then that's a different problem entirely. Since we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice, the statement can't be "incorrect", as it isn't our own opinion. You can in fact argue about the reliability of the DOJ's statement, but, again, there was a lengthy discussion on this recently, and the text is unlikely to change. Cessaune [talk] 22:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
disingenuous and unnecessaryand outrageous. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
temporary interruption, claiming this was the
only death, using the term
protestorand adding the word
unarmedwhile pointing to an article titled
Family of Ashli Babbitt, woman shot by officer during Capitol riot, says it was murder and plans to sue for wrongful death, this one-edit-user looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. The discussion was answered and I think it would have been better to let it remain that way, so I attempted to squelch it. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. You then attempted to shut them down with that idea in mind, without trying to meaningfully engage or explain, without providing sources, without providing any links to any relevant material, or alluding to any material at all that didn't just simply come from your brain, suggesting to any reasonable and uninformed person that this info that you've pulled out of nowhere is not to be trusted. The way you went about doing this was to characterize the events of Jan 6, tying them back in a sorta SYNTHy way to Babbitt in an attempt to prove your point. The fact that a pipe bomb was brought to the Capitol and the fact that Ashli Babbit was shot while climbing through a window are a) not the same event and b) not connected in any simple way; a connection between such events that would demonstrate your point to the degree that you would like (both being relevant to Jan 6 is not enough) cannot simply be asserted without a source. And, in the pursuit of quickly shutting down a discussion, I think you failed to adhere to two very simple rules:
Civility doesn’t just mean not being the asshole. It also means being reasonably polite to the asshole.If we consider the IP the aforementioned "asshole", then this boils down to treat others with greater respect that they treat you with. I don't think that you adhered to this.
...never put any advice to editors on your user page as they will surely accuse you of not following your own advice.Cessaune [talk] 19:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No need to leave this in the edit queue. Xan747 ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Still Not done: This section would look at lot better with a hat on. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Re: this edit from @ Ppt91 which was reverted by @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: adding the names of the supreme court justices Trump appointed to the lead. I think these names are clearly DUE and agree with Ppt91. We have precedent from George W. Bush, a GA. We have many multiple overviews of Trump's presidency mentioning these appointments as key to the impact Trump will have over the next several decades: [2] [3] [4] [5]. A zillion and a half longform large-scale overview pieces have been written focussed on specifically these appointments: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the other presidential articles say in the lead how many appellate court judges the person appointed. But they do name the Supreme Court justices who were appointed. I propose to change the current sentence here - "He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three U.S. Supreme Court justices." - to "He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court." That is the exact format used in other recent presidential articles - not just George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but also Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the input, all. I went ahead and changed it in the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Request other opinions on this exchange.
The pageant was removed from the lead in this edit. I agree with the editor's summary that it's not leadworthy, not in this long lead. Miss Universe mentions Trump in two short paragraphs in the "History" section, as owner/co-owner for 19 years in the pageant's 71-year history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The Miss Universe bit, should be excluded from the lead. He's better known for having been President of the United States. GoodDay ( talk) 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand who is proposing what. The status quo ante is the current one:
He expanded its operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice.
Side ventures include the NJ Generals, greenmailing, Trump Shuttle, Miss Universe, Trump University. The Apprentice is the only one of his forays into film (cameos), television (cameos, WWE), and radio (call-ins to Howard Stern, etc.) that we mention in the lead because that’s the one that "made him a star", or whatever. His role-playing on WWE, his film and TV cameos, his call-ins to radio shows etc. are mentioned in the body ( Donald Trump#Film and television with a link to the main article Media career of Donald Trump) but do they belong in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor removed the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template from the article a month ago, resulting in the "work" parameter being replaced by "newspaper" for a couple of newspapers but not for several others. (I wonder whether someone sicced the bot on George Santos where CNN, ABC, NBC, Politico, Talking Points Memo were all called "newspaper" ( [14]).) The previous discussion involved three editors, one opposed to and one supporting the template, one unclear ("should probably be discussed at community level" but they stopped caring about it). According to the bot’s user talk page, it’s a feature. IMO, on this page the argument that "newspaper is clear while work is not" doesn’t amount to much when it results in one in five newspapers having the parameter "newspaper", the other four having "work", and the output for the reader being exactly the same. The frequency of citation bot activity on this page has increased to less than 24 hours: June 9, June 25, June 26, July 4, July 6, July 7, July 8, July 9 Any objections to me reinserting the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
582 bytes of non-improvement in this long article, but this article's size problems are more about rendered length than about file size. The parameter name changes add nothing to rendered length, and the 0.13% increase in file size is not a significant problem. Remember, the latter has zero effect on readers, since they don't access the raw file that we edit.I "stopped caring" about this issue because I was tired of fighting an endless parade of human editors who had nothing better to do than go around changing parameter names with no effect on the rendered articles. That was before Citation bot started doing this. I didn't stop having an opinion; I decided I had better things to occupy my time. And now I'm 99%-retired and doing my best to avoid controversial, time-consuming issues.I'd suggest an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (in my opinion, the CS1/CS2 talk pages do not attract enough participation to establish community consensus on issues that are controversial and affect all editors). In the meantime, I'd let Citation bot have its way. This is not a battle for articles or article talk pages. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following line in the Wiki entry is inaccurate: "He considers exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29]"
This is not what the source cited says. Trump said, specifically, that he believes TOO MUCH exercise depletes the body's energy, not just exercise.
The corrected line should be:
He considers too much exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29] Metallix87 ( talk) 23:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The whole article reads like a political piece written by democrats? Every single paragraph except the first two have wording saying that trump either missinformed, failed to keep a promise, or was accused of a crime. Sentence after sentence after sentence against him. Not a single sentence saying that he did anything viewed as okay or fine.
Every piece of neutral information about a policy or action is followed by a "however" or a "instead" and a sentence to explain why the policy or action should be seen as bad
I know nothing is going to change here. At least you kept the rapist claims outside of the lead so props for having some decency. 2A02:8084:D021:A900:50A9:4432:31C7:526D ( talk) 22:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, in this section of the article, it is UNDUE to state that Trump denied such behavior in 2016, especially with respect to, and in light of, subsequent allegations. The reinserted text does not reflect the narrative the cited source. SpaceX correctly removed it, and it should not have been reinserted without affirmative consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." As the closer said: "There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1, namely including denials if they exist, as it received more !votes than everything else combined."
At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants."
In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people. [1]
these edits are premature. No consensus for this amid ongoing discussion. They should be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Pure Vice News, Trump "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them
."
[15] Also, the exact date that he denied some portion of the allegations seems to be a minor aspect. As such, I removed the year and restriction on number (e.g. instead of saying "In 2016, he denied six" ... just saying "He denied them")--
Jerome Frank Disciple 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Are all in agreement, on the wording? GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants." There's no line in WP:DENIALS that says "but only if the allegation is really specific!!!" As if Wikipedia policy would ever say "A rape accusation doesn't trigger WP:DENIAL unless it's REAL VIVID." That's absurd, and it's made up. Also, the vast majority of sources that report the allegations also report the denial. So, from my perspective, there's no DUE issue.
It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content." For someone who hasn't provided any sources showing that his denials are not included, that sounds a lot like "I don't want to have to do any work to support the position I'm taking." While I'm a bit skeptical of the "include the denial of whatever number of allegations the majority of sources say he denied" rule that @ GoodDay has suggested, it notably has nothing to do with anything you said above. Your original research analysis of how secondary sources present the denials is fascinating, but I'm not sure what it has to do with WP:DENIALS.
Trump has denied all of the allegationsinstead of
denied the allegationsviolates WP:IMPARTIAL (neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him".
Trump has repeatedly denied any accusations of sexual assault
has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them".
Trump denied the accusationsas the neutral, brief, and clearly expressed version. I can live with "allegations" if I must, but I don't like the word in this context. The women alleged, he denied — when he's alleging, too (i.e., they lied). "Accused" and "denied" is neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
[o]ther article pages, where specific allegations are described" -- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
bobbed and weavedin his "denials", that should cancel out the other instances in which Trump has, as you put it, "
denied anything and everything". I don't see anyone who's been persuaded by that argument. I'll leave it to others to try to persuade you or you to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or start an RFC, as you deem appropriate.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We do not count votes on WP. Not clear the count is accurate, either. I see you misrepresenting the concern I have stated above and not attempting to resolve or rebut it. There is no rush. Please give editors some time for research and reflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.
In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars." Second, this is a far less significant issue, but I'm a bit skeptical of paraphrasing that he called the accusers liars to "disparaging", for the same reason that I'd be a bit skeptical of saying "26 women have disparaged Trump by saying that he ...."-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations ...." (emphasis added).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars."
provides a compact compromise that notes the denials while contextualizing them just barely enough so as not to be misleading - thus addressing the concerns of editors above without fully omitting "denials" per MANDY. The context, widely noted in RS is the use of his friends, allies, and employees to speak for him on matters of which they have no knowledge and the ongoing misogynistic framing disparagement and personal attacks on the women who came forward. I don't think ridiculous, Christ, supposedly, etc. invalidates this proposed compromise. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.
"Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity," Hope Hicks, the president's then-spokeswoman and current White House communications director, told the Post in October 2016. "It is totally ridiculous."[19]
Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars.
As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.
Yikes.
Since it's obvious that the editors agreeing with SPECIFICO's point of view are in the vast minority, what is the point of even continuing this discussion? Use an RS or two above to substantiate/verify the claim that Trump denied the allegations and close this thread, please. I have no strong opinion as to the underlying question, but there is really no value in dragging on an argument about something so minor.
Cessaune
[talk] 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO,
this was the long-standing version: In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.
I removed the sentence
here and — naturally — got reverted
here. I then removed the second clause
here, followed by Starlighsky's edits, etc. The current cite for the sentence, the 2020 Guardian article, was in the paragraph all along, used as the cite for the first sentence.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump denied the allegations/accusations" line is sufficient.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has denied all the accusations/allegations." That's it. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has denied all accusationsis sufficient. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
... attacks and smears in his responses." — That is a very good point.To say "Trump denied all the allegations" is a concise and sufficient summary of his denials as such. But that he conjoined these with the sort of counter-accusations as to lose him a defamation lawsuit and cost him millions of dollars is significant, speaks to personality (or what used to be called "character"), and deserves mention. – .Raven .talk 18:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The brief text with references cited above (tertiary and more recent than the former 2017 source) needs to be written and put in place. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We currently say "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." in the lead section. How many protests are needed before including this as an important statement in the lead? I looked up at the entry for George W. Bush, who also had numerous protests, and this was not included in his lead section. Forich ( talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The facts (huge, peaceful demonstrations) haven't changed. "Policies" refers to the things he said during the campaign (second sentence of the lead paragraph,Trump's election victory sparked protests in major U.S. cities in the days following the election. [1] [2] On the day after Trump's inauguration, an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide, including an estimated half million in Washington, D.C., protested against Trump in the Women's Marches. [3]
During that campaign, Trump's political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert at first line:
{{Current related|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case)|Date=2 August 2023}}
IntUnderflow (
talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is clearly an extremely partisan biography, it should embarrass the writers and editors, quite frankly. Please reread it. I say this a non American with no specific interests in your internal politics. 78.150.101.116 ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
A minor change, but considering what Trump said, wouldn't it make sense to remove the "without their consent" line from the following:
" Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." "
My point is that taking the statement as a whole, it isn't exactly clear if he was bragging about groping woman without their consent. In fact, one could argue the "they let you do it" part of the quote implies there was consent. At the very least it's ambiguous, and I think "Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women" followed by what he said should suffice as a neutral statement. 174.7.15.203 ( talk) 09:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
"I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy."That doesn't sound as though he's waited for consent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Trump talked about kissing women and grabbing them between their legs (using far cruder language) without permission.
Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone...
On his last evening in office Trump gave clemency to Eliyahu Weinstein, a used car salesman who had run a Ponzi scheme that stole almost a quarter of a billion dollars, and who had been ordered by a federal judge to forfeit that money, plus pay over $6 million more in restitution. The guy had continued to swindle while he was out on bail awaiting sentencing. Trump cut 16 years off his 24-year sentence. He was represented in his clemency application by Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz and paid a former Ted Cruz staffer lobbyist to lean on Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the clemency matter. His clemency application was supported by New Jersey Democrat-turned-Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew and by Q-Anon conspiracist Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, (who had also made inquiries with Meadows about a "January 6th" pardon for himself), as well as additional now-ex-congressmen. On release, he concealed his assets to avoid paying restitution, then engaged in another Ponzi scheme that netted $35 million more for which he was rearrested yesterday. My edit covering Trump's executive action was reverted. I disagree strongly and submit its retention to other editors for further discussion. Activist ( talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
the guy re-offendedSure. But that's an ad-hoc rationale for why this is due. It's trivial to find a good-sounding ad-hoc rationale for every possible addition. But the article is already extremely long at 17k words (the informal Featured Article "limit" is usually 10k word nowadays), and this goes against summary-style, since it's not an essential aspect of his presidency. 30% of mobile visitors read nothing but the lead. The more cruft we add, the more people skim or quickly close the tab, and don't stick around for the important stuff. DFlhb ( talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I noticed in the lede it says "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden". Shouldn't this be something more akin to "Biden and his family"? Since it was moreso about Hunter, if anything. Thanks. Just suggesting. conman33 ( . . .talk) 04:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump is the subject of no less than 4 criminal investigations for various acts ranging from incitement of insurrection and high treason to the paying off of his hookers with campaign funds to the theft of classified documents for nefarious purposes to the attempt to overthrow US democracy by force and install himself as unelected dictator Yet this article has apparently so thoroughly been infiltrated by Trumpian propagandists that these facts, which are sadly all too well known, are buried until the final words of the lede. We place the shocking fact Trump and his businesses have been the subject of over 4,0000 civil lawsuits in paragraph 2. Although I believe Trump’s crimes and misdemeanors should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, I will graciously compromise with the Trumpists and propose they be placed in paragraph 2 next to the mention of Trump’s civil infractions. 67.85.99.134 ( talk) 16:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." is false due to recency bias. This means that we do not know the effects of his presidency until 5-10 years after. He also has the ability to become president again, so I believe it is not appropriate to make this claim. My edit would be to remove the sentence. Joecompan ( talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a proposal to remove the following sentence from the third paragraph of the lead:
His election and policies sparked numerous protests.
The sentence was added to the lead per consensus #20, based on these discussions: June 2017 and May 2018. I don't see that the editors who supported the removal were aware of consensus #20 or took it into account, and at least one of them thought the sentence was about the BLM protests in 2020 (His election seems fairly clear to me). I've reverted the premature removal of the sentence. Should consensus #20 and the sentence in the lead be removed? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "He was then indicted later that month by a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury on multiple counts for efforts to allegedly overthrow the results in that state." after "In August, a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury indicted him on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election." TheCelebrinator ( talk) 03:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The current first paragraph mentions his activities as a media personality and his business activities. In the last few years Trump has become better known for being at the centre of numerous investigations and criminal cases than his former career as a media personality nearly a decade ago. When the media has discussed Trump since he left the presidency, it has very often been related to the investigations of him. It would be reasonable to mention something about the criminal investigations that now engulf him. For example something like this:
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. Since leaving the presidency he has been the subject of several criminal investigations.
--
Tataral (
talk) 11:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: was the conensus list a novel idea first implemented on this page or was it adapted from another page? Thanks in advance. Cessaune [talk] 02:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
Consensus}}
template, which is used in many other article talk pages. It then underwent a number of evolutionary changes that were unique to this page. At some point it became a section on the page, which (1) increased its visibility by adding it to the table of contents and (2) provided a target for section links on this page and in article edit summaries. Later, the section became a separate, transcluded page to allow for edit protection. ―
Mandruss
☎ 08:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)@ FMSky: why?. You didn't provide an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I was about to delete the sentence Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan was assigned to the case
with cite when I noticed that I had accidentally removed it in an
earlier edit. The reason is the same as the mention of Judge Cannon that I
removed just now, i.e., there will be at least six criminal cases with six judges, and at the moment their names don't seem relevant details for Trump’s top bio. We can add them if that changes.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Tataral: This "standard move" isn't as dramatic as your two sentences with seven cites and the sentence in the lead made it appear. The prosecutors at the special counsel's office and Trump's counsel will be filing more motions. That might have a place at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) but not here. I haven't removed the sentence from the lead yet (3RR). WP:NOTNEWS and consensus #37 (summary-level) apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Alma Mater box say "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" rather than "Wharton School (BS Econ.)"? GreenFrogsGoRibbit ( talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Make sure that all relevant WP:RFCBEFORE suggestions have been tried.As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been done. Let's just have a normal discussion. Cessaune [talk] 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't residence in the Infobox include Trump National Golf Club Bedminster? He spends summers there and says he wants to be buried there. JonathanDP81 ( talk) 02:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the "one of the worst presidents by historians" part should be changed to "he is ranked poorly by historians, normally near the bottom ". It sounds less biased in my opinion TRJ2008 ( talk) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been asked, by way of a message on my talk page, to close Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 157#Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. I have no objection to doing this, and if nobody else minds, then I'll proceed to do so. I'm not American, I've never set foot in the US, I don't follow US politics, and I think I'm neutral and uninvolved. But it's a little unusual for a discussion participant to choose their own closer, so it's right for me to give people on this talk page a chance to raise any concerns or objections they might have before I start doing all the required reading. If you'd like to check my previous closes for any hint of bias, you're welcome to review User:S Marshall/RfC close log. I intend to leave this note here for a few days, and I will recuse from closing on request from any good faith, established editor (by which I mean any editor who's autoconfirmed as of this timestamp and not under any admin-imposed sanctions).— S Marshall T/ C 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
proper close: don’t you mean "formal"? Looks to me as though everyone involved decided to WP:DISENGAGE and live with the status quo ante, preferring no mention to "the wrong one". I kind of assume that during the month the closure request was open a number of potential closers took a look at the discussion and said "not with a ten-foot pole". By that time, the discussion had been closed for over 7 weeks and buried (archived) for 5 weeks.
a new trial on damages or grant remittitur because contrary to Plaintiff's claim of rape, the Jury found that she was not raped but was sexually abused by Defendant".The judge denied the request and clarified the judgment.
"Instead," the judge wrote, "the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of 'rape' to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," the ruling said.In the meantime, we’ve added the section Federal and state criminal cases against Trump and in January, at the latest, will probably add a section on the civil cases (at least three I know of, Carroll II and ACN scheduled for January, NY tax case unknown date), so I personally wouldn’t want to pet-sematary the discussion that stopped almost 3 months ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The last comment was three months ago, the discussion is already four archive pages deep. The discussion is out of date, IMO - see my earlier edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@ S Marshall: Do you have any figures or a personal estimate of the relative frequency of close challenges to Trump-related discussions? I do not recall that having been the case, nor do I expect it generally to be the case in the future. Thanks for your efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Inmate No. P01135809 12.186.19.242 ( talk) 00:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This bill should be mentioned as it was heavily supported by the Trump Admin and made intentional acts of animal cruelty a federal crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/trump-animal-cruelty-bill.html 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether someone “thinks” this is “cool” is entirely irrelevant as a criterion for inclusion. This is already a very long article, which makes it difficult enough to find important information. Padding the article further with trivial matters like this will only make things worse. TheScotch ( talk) 13:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current image in the infobox for Donald Trump is his official presidential portrait taken in 2017. This photo is directly associated with his term as President of the United States; a bygone era. The man has been in the public eye long before the beginning of his presidential campaign, and still is now well into the Biden administration. Therefore, the current image is no longer representative of his place in the world, and has not been since January of 2021. Currently, a more relevant image would be the mugshot taken by Fulton County Jail. This benefits from its recency, as well as its relation to current events concerning Donald Trump. IanTaggart1215 ( talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.I think putting the mugshot in the infobox is intentional to present him in a disparaging light, or at least does so enough to run afoul of WP:NPOV. Put it in the appropriate section on the indictment but keep the infobox photo as is. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trump/Archive 160 | |
---|---|
While I would personally be happy to see the mugshot replace the official photograph, WP:MUGSHOT applies here, and it can't be done. However, it's entirely reasonable to look for a more recent photograph than the 2017 one, which is a carefully chosen, lit and posed (and quite possibly also retouched) official photograph intended to portray Trump in the most favorable possible light. Trump now looks very little like that photograph, and a more realistic photograph would be appropriate. — The Anome ( talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's no general assumption that mugshots are public domain. Works created by Federal agencies (in the course of their duties) are usually public domain. The states of Florida and California also have provisions which make their mugshots usually public domain (that probably covers the majority of existing mugshots), and there's a few other quirks in the system. However there's no indication at this time that images from Fulton County Sheriff's Office or the State of Georgia are public domain. Our Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline requires that a rationale is provided for each article that a non-free image is used in. There's currently no rationale listed at File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg for its usage in this article, and it will keep getting removed entirely until one is provided. Other things aside, when you consider a rationale, it's not going to be for identification of the subject at the top of the article; it's going to be in some sub-section about his current predicament. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s).We're linking to the current version, and the image is at Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump, so we're complying with applicable WP rules, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
posed portrait, prepped by a makeup artist who most likely flew with him on the plane to secure the hair with extreme aerosol" should be the infobox photo. Otherwise, I don't see why this exchange should continue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)