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 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | → | Archive 165 |
I tried to find the word “bankrupt” at this talk page but couldn’t find it, so this edit summary by User:SPECIFICO doesn’t seem correct. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:LEAD: the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.
We mention the Chapter 11 bankruptcies, with link to
Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, in
Donald_Trump#Real_estate,
Donald_Trump#Manhattan_developments, and
Donald_Trump#Atlantic_City_casinos which are already summary-level per consensus #37. It's the editor adding content who should have explained their reason in their
edit summary. (The edit also added the Chapter 11 Wikilink that would need to be discussed per consensus #60, IMO.) So, why does the summary of the summary need the extra word and link? I actually looked at that Kudzu-esque archive and know that you wrote "clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies" but not why we should. "I bankrupted six of my businesses but managed to skirt personal bankruptcy" isn't really something to brag about.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 11:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It’s well-known that there is stigma associated with bankruptcy, more so for personal bankruptcy than business bankruptcy:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
competent leaders are expected to exercise control over their organizations and that such control is expected to lead to organizational success, not to more than $1 billion in debt that the business can't pay interest on or repay. I'm opposed to add the link, per consensus #60 and MOS:OVERLINK. IMO business and bankrupty are "everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Four editors have said they’re okay with inserting “business”, and have explained why, with one of them saying they’re also okay with leaving that word out. A fifth editor has opposed, but has not substantiated that the word “business” is unusable as an adjective (nor has explained why the current language already implies all six were business bankruptcies). So I plan to insert it later today without wikilink. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:48, 11 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.
Idk if this has been discussed but should "Criminal Status" be added to the infobox? GamerKlim9716 ( talk) 00:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change photot to mugshot 2605:B100:117:4AD8:1D19:2397:85BC:AC13 ( talk) 23:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
trump indicted
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/14/us/trump-indictment-georgia-election 2603:6080:3C09:EABE:BE0:B05F:3FF0:865 ( talk) 11:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the cult of Donald Trump has been an important, if not critical aspect of Donald Trump since the 1980s, why is there not a single mention of this in the article? Donald Trump was famous for having an ardent cult following in the 1980s. It's how he promoted his books and got people to go visit his properties in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. It's how he got his fan base to buy Trump University products after his nationally famous business bankruptcies. There are many mentions and even books on this topic, so it's exclusion from the article leaves it being very suspect and even intentional. By the way, how much of this article was written by people from outside the United States, where most information on Donald Trump and the U.S. is largely unavailable? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x removed a section about Trump's possible ineligibility for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is not just two lawyers saying this; this issue has been repeatedly raised in WP:RS before (as an Internet search for "Trump 14th amendment" on any of the major search engines will show), and is a matter of active controversy. I propose to reinstate this material. Comments welcome. — The Anome ( talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The charges against Trump are probably the most significant thing about him at this point. They should be given more prominence in the lede and article and not buried, like they are now. This is a disgrace. Sad! 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I
removed the second WP link in this sentence: In June, a
Miami federal grand jury indicted him on 37 felonies related to his
handling of classified documents (with three charges added in July).
Reason: there are at least four WP pages on the documents case (my edit summary says "3" but I've since found another one), there are plenty of links to those pages in the body and on the page the remaining link points to, and more than one link for each one of the court cases is going to be confusing rather than helpful. (There will be more court cases, it seems.) The link
promptly reinserted with the edit summary saying that it was a "correction of the link". Keep or remove?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:44, 15 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.
Demoted from RfC per discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Should we include the following text?
Proposed text:In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Federal judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed Trump's counter-claim that Carroll had defamed him by alleging rape. In his ruling, Kaplan stated that jury's verdict found that Trump did rape Carroll in the common understanding of the word, which includes digital rape. [3] Trump has appealed the jury verdict against him. [4]
After
some widely-participated discussions months earlier on the topic, the discussions were unfortunately not closed, archived, and closure was rejected
recently on the basis that since new developments occurred, the discussion may be out of date, and that it would be better to have a new discussion with new arguments. The above text is similar to Part 1 of the old discussion, but the second-last sentence ("digitally raped"
) is entirely new, due to new developments.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 14:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
the status quo is the working text" - I agree. But, I don't want people to see the current revision as written in stone through talk page consensus. If somebody want's to alter it (including merging aspects of Starship's proposal), it's something I'm open to. That's all I'm saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
From previous discussion: @ Shibbolethink, SPECIFICO, Lights and freedom, The Capitalist forever, Jerome Frank Disciple, DFlhb, Jayron32, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Bob K31416, and Objective3000: starship .paint ( exalt) 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources on the jury's verdict - starship
|
---|
|
@ Starship.paint: I think you may have misunderstood the concern about your close request. I don't think we need this RfC. Just make the edit and see whether there's any objection. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million. [1] Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending. [2] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal. [3]
{{ping|Starship.paint} Please consider withdrawing this RfC and let's see whether anyone challenges Space-etc's summary of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Since the withdrawal of this poll, there's been what I consider UNDUE, unnecessary, detail about Trump's assault added to the article. While it's possible that such content may be noteworthy and significant for various other article pages, it is not needed on this page, and it comes off merely as salacious and incommensurate with the summary level with which we treat dozens of other events.I'm mentioning this here because after I removed this content, it was reinserted (violating 24-BRD) and I am going to remove it again if it is not self-reverted by the editor who reinserted it. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The article seems to have new incidents added daily.....is he in the news in the US daily? Moxy- 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
no offense but was this facetious? this is a news leader both home and abroad for days. weeks. ValarianB ( talk) 04:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article, too. We also have a local consensus, #37, above, that "[c]ontent related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." It's just that editors disagree on what's WP:NOTNEWS, and some, especially those who are not regulars on this page, get overly enthusiastic about adding the latest headlines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Though the indictments have happened, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we should refrain from referencing it from the opening paragraph. This can be shown in one of the quiz questions/examples including Michael Phelps criminal history in the opening paragraph. The Financial Scribe ( talk) 20:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I think they are where it should bemean you just don't like the edit? soibangla ( talk) 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Random Huge Changes to Lede Without Discussion. I said "op-ed" because
within three years after leaving officeand the sum total weren't supported by the body and the sources at the time, and I agree with the Scribe that we shouldn't be mentioning indictments in the first paragraph. MOS:OPEN: if Trump is convicted of a crime, we should mention it in the first paragraph, IMO, but until then he's innocent until proven guilty. The indictments are good where they are, in chronological order in the last paragraph.
According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.Irving sure does but he's a discredited historian and Holocaust denier, so WP:UNDUE applies, probably also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh my - please make sure to get rid of that from the questions, and find who added it
Andre
🚐 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Andre
🚐 21:02, 18 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.
I stand by my view that the RFC above is perfectly valid and that discussion has already happened multiple times on this issue, but on the chance that agreement is made that the RFC is premature and shut down, I strongly stand by my central argument which I will incorporate here:
″It's never too late to fix a perpetual error. The time has come to once against challenge the outlier that is this page. This page stands alone among presidential pages and other graduates of this school. For years, this page has erroneously stuck out by hyper-focusing on the specific department Trump went to and explaining what his degree was without any real reason to justify say WP:IGNORE. To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". It's not just other graduates of this very school that this page sticks out for no reason whatsoever. In comparison to other presidents, it sticks out as well. We don't mention Obama went to Columbia College or Biden went to Syracuse Law. We simply include the university in full (so we simply say Columbia University or Syracuse University) in full recognition that we hyperfocus on the exact department in the early life section. Yes, this page has been this way for years and it's been embarrassing non-stop. The prior consensus is shockingly pretty minimal and the arguments are borderline nonsensical, falsely claiming all or most of the sources say Wharton when plenty simply says UPenn. Because it fails to meet WP:IGNORE, there is no reason it should differ from the presidents before or after. We don't focus on the department of the university nor do we elucidate the major of a particular degree in the infobox for any page, but this one. That was error when it was first implemented and it's still error today.″
So can we establish new consensus to fix the alma box? GreenFrogsGoRibbit ( talk) 07:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
in a Trump contextis 1968, the year he graduated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a bold edit while the discussion is still open and consensus #18 is still on the books? I realize that the participation was underwhelming, the last edit was five days ago, and the five editors who voiced an opinion on substance supported the change but there's still Mandruss's dissent on the minimum number of participants. (Not sure how Mandruss counted the number of editors who supported "Wharton School" in the four discussions mentioned in #18. I find the number of options editors voted on a tad confusing.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)".While correct protocol isn't necessarily true, this is defintely a point and not simply conjecture. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
overly bureaucratic, I just don't agree with their bold editing against consensus #18. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
All students in the Wharton School’s undergraduate program receive a Bachelor of Science in Economics degree from the University of Pennsylvania, even those with a
real estate concentrationlike the orange super genius, I imagine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Aaand, then there is this (left hand not knowing what the right one is doing?): Graduates earn a BS in Economics from the Wharton School. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Consensus 18 - Wharton is a separate college within U of P. BS makes it clear his concentration was their BS track. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
If an RFC is required? then so be it.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Best cleanup would be to remove the Political Party, Residence, and Education entries so that we could get the infobox down to a reasonable length on various non-desktop devices. Those 3 are not very informative. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I love how the conjecture, snide equivocation, false analogy, etc. continued even after everyone agreed it wasn't worth worrying about. A benchmark thread that will live on in the annals of CT talk pages. Thanks to Mandruss for the prompt close. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article states that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation
, but does not elaborate on the basic facts. Can we agree to include that it occurred in the mid-1990s in a department store, and that he defamed her by accusing her of making up the allegation?
starship
.paint (
exalt) 06:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources (where/when/defame) - starship
|
---|
|
Wish to get input on whether there is support for adding that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers
. This is relevant in the light of the other claim that Carroll's rape allegations against Trump were "substantially true" in the ordinary understanding of the word "rape"
. It is the key reason behind the second claim. It also avoid misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred, and we must be cautious on
WP:BLP. Forced penetration with fingers, also known as digital rape, was widely covered in top mainstream sources below, satisfying
WP:V and
WP:DUE.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources on the judge's ruling on penetration with fingers / digital rape - starship
|
---|
|
"Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll."( Bloomberg). starship .paint ( exalt) 02:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
"It also avoids misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred", "Trump digitally raped Carroll" — why is this distinction a BLP concern? The previous version is also
WP:V and
WP:DUE, IMO: Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending.
[1] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal.
[2]
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) I'm OK with the
current version, without any details.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
rape … most often involving sexual intercourse, Merriam Webster [7]
rape … usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, Law.com dictionary [8]
Rape … the crime of sexual intercourse, From the case itself, New York law considers penile rape a more severe offence than digital rape (sexual abuse), so by avoiding the misunderstanding that he committed penile rape, we avoid WP:BLP issues. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Can we compromise on the current "bland" version until the Carroll I trial has taken place and/or the rulings on the appeals have been announced, whichever comes first? The only mention of rape is Trump denying it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a new definition of rape, to be used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, that better reflected state criminal codes and the experiences of rape victims. By that definition, rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.starship .paint ( exalt) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
References
such that everything about Trump's life is subordinate to the unprecedented reality that, due to his actions as president of the United States, the pinnacle of his life and the most powerful position in the world, he has been twice impeached for corruption and criminally indicted on dozens of counts in multiple federal and state jurisdictions. Again, this is without precedent in American history. It is the single unique and defining characteristic of the man.
This should be succinctly stated in the second paragraph of the lead, rather than buried in the lead, with details relegated to the body. soibangla ( talk) 03:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
So I saw earlier on Wikipedia that for people born in NYC the consensus is to say “New York City, New York, U.S.” in the infobox. As such Donald Trump’s box should be changed as well. Banan14kab ( talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“Falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud” should be changed to “claiming widespread electoral fraud” in the second sentence of the second to last paragraph of the lead section. This is highly subjective, and people have conflicting opinions about whether the claims were false or not. It seems biased to report that they were. Wikipedia has a policy about keeping bias out of articles - regardless of whether you agree with the claim or not. PizzaManiac81 ( talk) 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Under Post-presidency (2021–present), at the very last line in the fourth paragraph, you will find this sentence:
Though there were exceptions, Trump's endorsement was seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections.
the word *endorsement* should be plural, as *endorsements*. Torbslifre ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I've rephrased the sentence, forgot to add an edit summary. "Was seen as important" is true but not supported by the cited source. The source cites some of the better-known winners and losers and says in the subline that "candidates whom former President Donald J. Trump endorsed have racked up many wins and a handful of prominent losses". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is just a minor suggestion, but on most other pages for presidents with notable ratings, the "Scholars and historians rank [name] as one of the [best/worst] presidents in American history" is usually at the end of the lede, even the last sentence. Andrew Johnson for example. Should that be the case here, or is it better to leave it be? I don't think it matters a tremendous amount either way, just figured I'd mention it. Delukiel ( talk) 05:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.Cessaune [talk] 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This image was sent to me and all other news media who requested it, by the Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office Public Affairs Manager. The form I submitted, on behalf of Wikimedia, to get on that e-mailing list said that we are free to use it "in the normal course of business". I assume Wikimedia's normal course of business is to house photos and other media for use in Wikipedia articles and other Wiki sites.
Another editor at Wikimedia has speedily deleted the image as having an imperfect copyright. I'm not very experienced in Wikimedia copyright issues, so if anyone else knows how to navigate the rules, please advise.
I think this article is definitely incomplete without the booking photo. Thanks. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The Anome, why the large format? The image has the same nightmarish quality at 0.8. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
A former president of the United States had his mugshot taken. That's historical. It needs to be added to the article. Chavando ( talk) 06:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. It would be heinous, and I daresay a violationation of the NPOV to not include his historic and absolutely relevant mugshot onto his page. George Mucus
The booking photo keeps getting removed as non-free content. However, https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf reads in part, "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." It further states that we cannot "remove or delete such booking photograph ... in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration." This booking photo belongs in this article, and it definitely is NOT non-free content. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yoohoo, and sheesh! The booking photo has been glaring at readers of the article all day: Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This photo appears on several other Wikipedia pages. I'll also note that I have seen other valid fair use photos removed with erroneous applications of our policies regarding such use. Some editors are highly knowlegeable about the applicable standard. Many more believe that they are highly knowledgeable but misinterpret it. Business as usual. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Pictures of people still alive, and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.What would be a free substitute for a booking photo? I don't care one way or the other; it's just a visual for the historic event of a former U.S. president being processed under Georgia law like every other defendant. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the image per WP:NFC#UUI #6. Our practices on this are crystal clear. The image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump, which is properly linked in this article. Please don't restore it. If you disagree with WP:NFC#UUI, you are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NFC to have it changed. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The subsection isn't about the photo, it's about the Georgia election interference case, main article Georgia election racketeering prosecution. It's the iconic image for the historic first of the criminal indictments. Also the LP part of BLP has published the image on his social media accounts and his campaign website, and he's commercializing this item of government property by selling T-shirts, mugs, koozies, bumper stickers and who knows what else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I had this added to the article but it was reverted. I believe this is relevant because it shows how much of a habitual liar he is:
In August 2023 prior to his booking at the Fulton County jail, Trump self-reported to authorities that he weighed 215lbs (pounds) and was six-foot, three inches tall. This came just months after he told New York authorities in April that he weighed 240lbs and was six-foot, two inches tall. [1]
Anyways, I guess the biggest liar in American history covering for his bruised ego isn't relevant. Thanks! conman33 ( . . .talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
References
While his claims about the presidential election in 2020 being invalid may be false many people believe in it so I wonder if it's a good idea to outright say they are false 173.30.85.91 ( talk) 01:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There’s a sentence in the lead that says, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests.” I suggest editing it to say, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests and rallies, for and against.” Trump is famous for rallies in his favor, and of course for protests in his favor such as the one that got out of hand on 1/6. The present language only suggests protests against him. I never went to either type of protest or rally, but I do protest this sentence which could use more NPOV. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
got out of hand on 1/6. That suggests it was not as planned as evidence shows. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think 'for or against' will work at this time. The evidence in this article supports the sentence as is - without change. I don't recall any significant protests specifically for Trump's policies. Also, the rallies are support for Trump and not his policies. I don't recall Trump discussing many policies during his rallies. So, I agree we need RS to support the proposed change. Also, the posted article is much appreciated. But I don't think changing the sentence under discussion is necessary because of the article. This sentence already broadly covers that, which is the function of a lead sentence. Maybe add a blurb in the body if it's needed. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I have presented a template for some of notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed during the Trump administration that are not currently noted on at all within the 'Presidency' section of his profile. I mentioned these two pieces of legislation because these two pieces of legislation are in fact notable enough to be mentioned underneath the presidency section of his profile. At the minimum these two pieces of legislation are roughly equivalent to the PACT Act which is mentioned underneath the Presidency section of Joe Biden.
The First Step Act, is in fact a pretty notable piece of legislation regarding criminal justice reform and the first piece of criminal justice reform that has been passed in decades on the federal level. regarding claims that it is "not a big change in U.S. criminal justice system (federal prisoners are a relatively small portion of U.S. prisoners)" I feel it's important to be reminded that, constitutionally speaking, the U.S. federal government can't pass major laws relating to how States can impact their federal guidelines. Just take a look at the Respect for Marriage Act or even DOMA. By using that same logic those two laws only relate to the Federal Governmental recognition of Gay Marriage which do not by any means make up a majority of same-sex marriages are not notable enough because very few people get married federally and it doesn't make a large impact regarding mandating Alabama to recognize gay marriage. Both pieces of legislation are still prominent because they are roughly the max (albeit in opposite directions) ways in which the Government can show approval over the issue and provide or prohibit protections. The Federal Prison system is ultimately the only prison system the Federal Government can make notable changes to. Not the states. The First Step Act was a notable piece of legislation as it was the first time in Decades that there had been any real domestic legislation regarding prison reform in this country. Especially being the first that wasn't explicitly pushing for the War on Drugs. Conversely, The Great American Outdoors Act is notable because it is, objectively speaking, the biggest increase in funding towards the National Park Services and Conservation in Decades. I even made sure the sources provided regarding this information were specifically non-profit environmental groups like the Property and Environment Research Center and the National Parks Conservation Association.
I understand there is some debate as to whether to include these pieces of legislation under his presidency over the question of whether or not he was "actively involved" in the passing of it but to be honest I think that's holding Trump to a higher standard than prior presidents. Looking specifically at Presidents Biden and Johnson, both of them get credit for pieces of legislation that were seen as notable without a lot of personal involvement on their end. For example, the Respect for Marriage Act was a notable piece of legislation regarding federal recognition of Gay marriages but that was a largely senator-led piece of legislation spearheaded by Tammy Baldwin and Kyrsten Sinema. While he did say he supported it, President Biden was not in the trenches lobbying for it. That is very much in line with Trump's handling of some of this legislation too. In addition, the Immigration and Nationalities Act signed under Lyndon Johnson specifically reference his lack of involvement within the drafting of the bill and even specifies his support for a weaker version. In both cases both presidents have it referenced under the 'Domestic Policy' section of their presidencies. I mean, Joe Biden has the Postal Service Reform Act listed under his presidency as a notable piece of domestic policy which, while I'm not denying in any way that it is not notable, does not necessarily have a presence within the public consciousness and isn't likely to be mentioned in any biographies when historians try to boost up their presidencies (think Nixon getting revision decades later by people lauding OSHA and the EPA). I don't really see how these two pieces of legislation are really any different. Especially when the Time and NPCA articles I referenced for the First Step Act and Great American Outdoors Act respectively both show that there was some personal involvement by Trump regarding them; even if those two forms of involvement were the result of heavy Celebrity Lobbying by Kim Kardashian or trying to stabilize Western Republicans reelection chances in 2020.
I'm by no means trying to give Trump a bunch of undue credit and proclaim him as some Conservationist Criminal Justice Reforming Icon, but there really should be some mention of these two more notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed under his administration. Like, the reality is, these two pieces of legislation are of roughly equal weight to those such as the PACT Act or even the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which passed underneath Biden and as such are mentioned under his article. Again, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act being, once again, a *Federal Statute* that does not address "a big change" but is itself notable for being the first notable piece of legislation regarding the issue in decades. These additions are by no means meant to make Trump look like an angel or anything. There's a reason some of those minor pieces of legislation like that one animal cruelty bill people bring up sometimes isn't being mentioned here (because it's so incredibly minor and would be nothing but fluff). But these pieces of legislation are in line with others mentioned underneath prior and subsequent administrations and I do think they deserve some lines to be noted on with.
In December of 2018, Trump signed into law the
First Step Act. The bipartisan bill was designed as a way to reduce
recidivism rates and reduce the federal inmate population while maintaining public safety.
[1]
[2]
[3] The bill received significant attention through the activism of celebrity
Kim Kardashian who made heavy pushes for the Trump Administration to give support to the bill alongside the
commutation of various individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
[4]
[5]
In August of 2020, Trump signed into law the
Great American Outdoors Act.
[6] The law would provide permanent funding of up to $1.9 Billion dollars per year for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund while providing temporary funding over five years to address maintenance backlog issues and the repair of
National Park services.
[7]
[8]
LosPajaros (
talk) 20:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
References
In December 2018, Trump signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act, which aimed to reduce recidivism rates and the federal inmate population while maintaining public safetyand
In August 2020, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided five years of funding for maintenance issues of the National Park Service.starship .paint ( RUN) 03:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Trump would sign things that were put in front of him, and he would forget to sign things that aides surreptitiously removed from his desk.I am afraid that this is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent for other presidents. If a policy is notable and WP:DUE, then it does not matter how fast he signed the bill as it still belongs to his administration. I'd like to see if we can give more consideration to the policies mentioned by @ LosPajaros and find a way of incorporating them. Ppt91 talk 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
considerable amount of work done by an editor with less experience: I tried to read that work but even with the paragraph breaks added by Starship it’s still a WP:WALLOFTEXT that is WP:TLDR. The question is whether the signing of the policies is
notable and duefor this article, Trump’s top bio. We should be comparing it to other content in this bio (based on amount and quality of coverage in RS), not to content in the bios of other presidents who do not have 1,001 Wikipedia articles on, well, everything, e.g. Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump and Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. (The "editor with less experience" has themselves dismissed efforts by an experienced editor ( [10], [11]) to trim their excessive description of the voice sample they recently added to the infobox with the bland summaries "description", "voice box specification", and "formatting" ( [12], [13], [14]) instead of discussing the matter on the Talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Are these really signature pieces of legislation he will be long remembered for, or is this just routine? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I've done some trimming in the social media and false and misleading statements sections. Bold means removed and green
means tweaked or moved.
Before Social media:
Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during the 2016 election campaign and as president until Twitter banned him in the final days of his term. Over twelve years, Trump posted around 57,000 tweets,
often using Twitter as a direct means of communication with the public and sidelining the press. In June 2017, a White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. Trump often announced terminations of administration officials and cabinet members over Twitter.After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods,
Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checking warnings in May 2020.In response, Trump tweeted that "Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative[] voices" and that he would "strongly regulate[] or close them down". In the days after the storming of the United States Capitol, Trump was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of Trump's social media presence, including his 88.7 million Twitter followers, diminished his ability to shape events, and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump's early attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following.
On November19,2022, new Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's account. Trump did not use the reinstated account until August 25, 2023, when he posted his booking photo from Fulton County Jail.
Before false statements:
As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year.He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.
Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, such as his claim of the "biggest inaugural crowd ever".Others had more far-reaching effects, such as his promotion of unproven antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19 in a press conference and on Twitter. The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia.Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror",served Trump's domestic political purposes. As a matter of principle, Trump does not apologize for his falsehoods.Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies. The first time The Washington Post did so was in August 2018, when it declared that some of Trump's misstatements, in particular those concerning hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, were lies.
In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.
James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitterwhose removal Specifico didn't challenge. Trump's absence leading to a dramatic decrease of misinformation seems more important to me than e.g. quoting Trump's response after Twitter had started to add fact-checks to his tweets. I haven't looked at other text you removed/changed and Specifico challenged. It would be much easier if you trimmed sentences or paragraphs individually, with edit summaries stating your reason(s). This is how I would trim:
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. [1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year. [2] He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later. [2]
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. [1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year to 39 per day in his final year as president. [3]
References
database
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia." can be removed. The thing about how the media doesn't call them lies; ok? This distinction is more to do with the media than Trump and should not be included in this summary level detail; furthermore, the Stormy Daniel's thing is undue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods...on the Twitter paragraph. It provides vital context for both why and when Twitter acted, in terms of the overall timeline, and gives context for everything below that in the section. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 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 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | → | Archive 165 |
I tried to find the word “bankrupt” at this talk page but couldn’t find it, so this edit summary by User:SPECIFICO doesn’t seem correct. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:LEAD: the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.
We mention the Chapter 11 bankruptcies, with link to
Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, in
Donald_Trump#Real_estate,
Donald_Trump#Manhattan_developments, and
Donald_Trump#Atlantic_City_casinos which are already summary-level per consensus #37. It's the editor adding content who should have explained their reason in their
edit summary. (The edit also added the Chapter 11 Wikilink that would need to be discussed per consensus #60, IMO.) So, why does the summary of the summary need the extra word and link? I actually looked at that Kudzu-esque archive and know that you wrote "clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies" but not why we should. "I bankrupted six of my businesses but managed to skirt personal bankruptcy" isn't really something to brag about.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 11:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It’s well-known that there is stigma associated with bankruptcy, more so for personal bankruptcy than business bankruptcy:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
competent leaders are expected to exercise control over their organizations and that such control is expected to lead to organizational success, not to more than $1 billion in debt that the business can't pay interest on or repay. I'm opposed to add the link, per consensus #60 and MOS:OVERLINK. IMO business and bankrupty are "everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Four editors have said they’re okay with inserting “business”, and have explained why, with one of them saying they’re also okay with leaving that word out. A fifth editor has opposed, but has not substantiated that the word “business” is unusable as an adjective (nor has explained why the current language already implies all six were business bankruptcies). So I plan to insert it later today without wikilink. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:48, 11 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.
Idk if this has been discussed but should "Criminal Status" be added to the infobox? GamerKlim9716 ( talk) 00:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change photot to mugshot 2605:B100:117:4AD8:1D19:2397:85BC:AC13 ( talk) 23:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
trump indicted
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/14/us/trump-indictment-georgia-election 2603:6080:3C09:EABE:BE0:B05F:3FF0:865 ( talk) 11:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the cult of Donald Trump has been an important, if not critical aspect of Donald Trump since the 1980s, why is there not a single mention of this in the article? Donald Trump was famous for having an ardent cult following in the 1980s. It's how he promoted his books and got people to go visit his properties in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. It's how he got his fan base to buy Trump University products after his nationally famous business bankruptcies. There are many mentions and even books on this topic, so it's exclusion from the article leaves it being very suspect and even intentional. By the way, how much of this article was written by people from outside the United States, where most information on Donald Trump and the U.S. is largely unavailable? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x removed a section about Trump's possible ineligibility for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is not just two lawyers saying this; this issue has been repeatedly raised in WP:RS before (as an Internet search for "Trump 14th amendment" on any of the major search engines will show), and is a matter of active controversy. I propose to reinstate this material. Comments welcome. — The Anome ( talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The charges against Trump are probably the most significant thing about him at this point. They should be given more prominence in the lede and article and not buried, like they are now. This is a disgrace. Sad! 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I
removed the second WP link in this sentence: In June, a
Miami federal grand jury indicted him on 37 felonies related to his
handling of classified documents (with three charges added in July).
Reason: there are at least four WP pages on the documents case (my edit summary says "3" but I've since found another one), there are plenty of links to those pages in the body and on the page the remaining link points to, and more than one link for each one of the court cases is going to be confusing rather than helpful. (There will be more court cases, it seems.) The link
promptly reinserted with the edit summary saying that it was a "correction of the link". Keep or remove?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:44, 15 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.
Demoted from RfC per discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Should we include the following text?
Proposed text:In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. [1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. [2] Federal judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed Trump's counter-claim that Carroll had defamed him by alleging rape. In his ruling, Kaplan stated that jury's verdict found that Trump did rape Carroll in the common understanding of the word, which includes digital rape. [3] Trump has appealed the jury verdict against him. [4]
After
some widely-participated discussions months earlier on the topic, the discussions were unfortunately not closed, archived, and closure was rejected
recently on the basis that since new developments occurred, the discussion may be out of date, and that it would be better to have a new discussion with new arguments. The above text is similar to Part 1 of the old discussion, but the second-last sentence ("digitally raped"
) is entirely new, due to new developments.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 14:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
the status quo is the working text" - I agree. But, I don't want people to see the current revision as written in stone through talk page consensus. If somebody want's to alter it (including merging aspects of Starship's proposal), it's something I'm open to. That's all I'm saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
From previous discussion: @ Shibbolethink, SPECIFICO, Lights and freedom, The Capitalist forever, Jerome Frank Disciple, DFlhb, Jayron32, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Bob K31416, and Objective3000: starship .paint ( exalt) 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources on the jury's verdict - starship
|
---|
|
@ Starship.paint: I think you may have misunderstood the concern about your close request. I don't think we need this RfC. Just make the edit and see whether there's any objection. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million. [1] Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending. [2] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal. [3]
{{ping|Starship.paint} Please consider withdrawing this RfC and let's see whether anyone challenges Space-etc's summary of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Since the withdrawal of this poll, there's been what I consider UNDUE, unnecessary, detail about Trump's assault added to the article. While it's possible that such content may be noteworthy and significant for various other article pages, it is not needed on this page, and it comes off merely as salacious and incommensurate with the summary level with which we treat dozens of other events.I'm mentioning this here because after I removed this content, it was reinserted (violating 24-BRD) and I am going to remove it again if it is not self-reverted by the editor who reinserted it. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The article seems to have new incidents added daily.....is he in the news in the US daily? Moxy- 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
no offense but was this facetious? this is a news leader both home and abroad for days. weeks. ValarianB ( talk) 04:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article, too. We also have a local consensus, #37, above, that "[c]ontent related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." It's just that editors disagree on what's WP:NOTNEWS, and some, especially those who are not regulars on this page, get overly enthusiastic about adding the latest headlines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Though the indictments have happened, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we should refrain from referencing it from the opening paragraph. This can be shown in one of the quiz questions/examples including Michael Phelps criminal history in the opening paragraph. The Financial Scribe ( talk) 20:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I think they are where it should bemean you just don't like the edit? soibangla ( talk) 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Random Huge Changes to Lede Without Discussion. I said "op-ed" because
within three years after leaving officeand the sum total weren't supported by the body and the sources at the time, and I agree with the Scribe that we shouldn't be mentioning indictments in the first paragraph. MOS:OPEN: if Trump is convicted of a crime, we should mention it in the first paragraph, IMO, but until then he's innocent until proven guilty. The indictments are good where they are, in chronological order in the last paragraph.
According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.Irving sure does but he's a discredited historian and Holocaust denier, so WP:UNDUE applies, probably also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh my - please make sure to get rid of that from the questions, and find who added it
Andre
🚐 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Andre
🚐 21:02, 18 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.
I stand by my view that the RFC above is perfectly valid and that discussion has already happened multiple times on this issue, but on the chance that agreement is made that the RFC is premature and shut down, I strongly stand by my central argument which I will incorporate here:
″It's never too late to fix a perpetual error. The time has come to once against challenge the outlier that is this page. This page stands alone among presidential pages and other graduates of this school. For years, this page has erroneously stuck out by hyper-focusing on the specific department Trump went to and explaining what his degree was without any real reason to justify say WP:IGNORE. To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". It's not just other graduates of this very school that this page sticks out for no reason whatsoever. In comparison to other presidents, it sticks out as well. We don't mention Obama went to Columbia College or Biden went to Syracuse Law. We simply include the university in full (so we simply say Columbia University or Syracuse University) in full recognition that we hyperfocus on the exact department in the early life section. Yes, this page has been this way for years and it's been embarrassing non-stop. The prior consensus is shockingly pretty minimal and the arguments are borderline nonsensical, falsely claiming all or most of the sources say Wharton when plenty simply says UPenn. Because it fails to meet WP:IGNORE, there is no reason it should differ from the presidents before or after. We don't focus on the department of the university nor do we elucidate the major of a particular degree in the infobox for any page, but this one. That was error when it was first implemented and it's still error today.″
So can we establish new consensus to fix the alma box? GreenFrogsGoRibbit ( talk) 07:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
in a Trump contextis 1968, the year he graduated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a bold edit while the discussion is still open and consensus #18 is still on the books? I realize that the participation was underwhelming, the last edit was five days ago, and the five editors who voiced an opinion on substance supported the change but there's still Mandruss's dissent on the minimum number of participants. (Not sure how Mandruss counted the number of editors who supported "Wharton School" in the four discussions mentioned in #18. I find the number of options editors voted on a tad confusing.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)".While correct protocol isn't necessarily true, this is defintely a point and not simply conjecture. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
overly bureaucratic, I just don't agree with their bold editing against consensus #18. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
All students in the Wharton School’s undergraduate program receive a Bachelor of Science in Economics degree from the University of Pennsylvania, even those with a
real estate concentrationlike the orange super genius, I imagine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Aaand, then there is this (left hand not knowing what the right one is doing?): Graduates earn a BS in Economics from the Wharton School. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Consensus 18 - Wharton is a separate college within U of P. BS makes it clear his concentration was their BS track. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
If an RFC is required? then so be it.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Best cleanup would be to remove the Political Party, Residence, and Education entries so that we could get the infobox down to a reasonable length on various non-desktop devices. Those 3 are not very informative. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I love how the conjecture, snide equivocation, false analogy, etc. continued even after everyone agreed it wasn't worth worrying about. A benchmark thread that will live on in the annals of CT talk pages. Thanks to Mandruss for the prompt close. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The article states that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation
, but does not elaborate on the basic facts. Can we agree to include that it occurred in the mid-1990s in a department store, and that he defamed her by accusing her of making up the allegation?
starship
.paint (
exalt) 06:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources (where/when/defame) - starship
|
---|
|
Wish to get input on whether there is support for adding that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers
. This is relevant in the light of the other claim that Carroll's rape allegations against Trump were "substantially true" in the ordinary understanding of the word "rape"
. It is the key reason behind the second claim. It also avoid misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred, and we must be cautious on
WP:BLP. Forced penetration with fingers, also known as digital rape, was widely covered in top mainstream sources below, satisfying
WP:V and
WP:DUE.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Mainstream sources on the judge's ruling on penetration with fingers / digital rape - starship
|
---|
|
"Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll."( Bloomberg). starship .paint ( exalt) 02:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
"It also avoids misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred", "Trump digitally raped Carroll" — why is this distinction a BLP concern? The previous version is also
WP:V and
WP:DUE, IMO: Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending.
[1] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal.
[2]
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) I'm OK with the
current version, without any details.
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(cowabunga) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
rape … most often involving sexual intercourse, Merriam Webster [7]
rape … usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, Law.com dictionary [8]
Rape … the crime of sexual intercourse, From the case itself, New York law considers penile rape a more severe offence than digital rape (sexual abuse), so by avoiding the misunderstanding that he committed penile rape, we avoid WP:BLP issues. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Can we compromise on the current "bland" version until the Carroll I trial has taken place and/or the rulings on the appeals have been announced, whichever comes first? The only mention of rape is Trump denying it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a new definition of rape, to be used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, that better reflected state criminal codes and the experiences of rape victims. By that definition, rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.starship .paint ( exalt) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
References
such that everything about Trump's life is subordinate to the unprecedented reality that, due to his actions as president of the United States, the pinnacle of his life and the most powerful position in the world, he has been twice impeached for corruption and criminally indicted on dozens of counts in multiple federal and state jurisdictions. Again, this is without precedent in American history. It is the single unique and defining characteristic of the man.
This should be succinctly stated in the second paragraph of the lead, rather than buried in the lead, with details relegated to the body. soibangla ( talk) 03:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
So I saw earlier on Wikipedia that for people born in NYC the consensus is to say “New York City, New York, U.S.” in the infobox. As such Donald Trump’s box should be changed as well. Banan14kab ( talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“Falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud” should be changed to “claiming widespread electoral fraud” in the second sentence of the second to last paragraph of the lead section. This is highly subjective, and people have conflicting opinions about whether the claims were false or not. It seems biased to report that they were. Wikipedia has a policy about keeping bias out of articles - regardless of whether you agree with the claim or not. PizzaManiac81 ( talk) 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Under Post-presidency (2021–present), at the very last line in the fourth paragraph, you will find this sentence:
Though there were exceptions, Trump's endorsement was seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections.
the word *endorsement* should be plural, as *endorsements*. Torbslifre ( talk) 23:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I've rephrased the sentence, forgot to add an edit summary. "Was seen as important" is true but not supported by the cited source. The source cites some of the better-known winners and losers and says in the subline that "candidates whom former President Donald J. Trump endorsed have racked up many wins and a handful of prominent losses". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is just a minor suggestion, but on most other pages for presidents with notable ratings, the "Scholars and historians rank [name] as one of the [best/worst] presidents in American history" is usually at the end of the lede, even the last sentence. Andrew Johnson for example. Should that be the case here, or is it better to leave it be? I don't think it matters a tremendous amount either way, just figured I'd mention it. Delukiel ( talk) 05:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.Cessaune [talk] 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This image was sent to me and all other news media who requested it, by the Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office Public Affairs Manager. The form I submitted, on behalf of Wikimedia, to get on that e-mailing list said that we are free to use it "in the normal course of business". I assume Wikimedia's normal course of business is to house photos and other media for use in Wikipedia articles and other Wiki sites.
Another editor at Wikimedia has speedily deleted the image as having an imperfect copyright. I'm not very experienced in Wikimedia copyright issues, so if anyone else knows how to navigate the rules, please advise.
I think this article is definitely incomplete without the booking photo. Thanks. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The Anome, why the large format? The image has the same nightmarish quality at 0.8. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
A former president of the United States had his mugshot taken. That's historical. It needs to be added to the article. Chavando ( talk) 06:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. It would be heinous, and I daresay a violationation of the NPOV to not include his historic and absolutely relevant mugshot onto his page. George Mucus
The booking photo keeps getting removed as non-free content. However, https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf reads in part, "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." It further states that we cannot "remove or delete such booking photograph ... in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration." This booking photo belongs in this article, and it definitely is NOT non-free content. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Yoohoo, and sheesh! The booking photo has been glaring at readers of the article all day: Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This photo appears on several other Wikipedia pages. I'll also note that I have seen other valid fair use photos removed with erroneous applications of our policies regarding such use. Some editors are highly knowlegeable about the applicable standard. Many more believe that they are highly knowledgeable but misinterpret it. Business as usual. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Pictures of people still alive, and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.What would be a free substitute for a booking photo? I don't care one way or the other; it's just a visual for the historic event of a former U.S. president being processed under Georgia law like every other defendant. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the image per WP:NFC#UUI #6. Our practices on this are crystal clear. The image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump, which is properly linked in this article. Please don't restore it. If you disagree with WP:NFC#UUI, you are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NFC to have it changed. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The subsection isn't about the photo, it's about the Georgia election interference case, main article Georgia election racketeering prosecution. It's the iconic image for the historic first of the criminal indictments. Also the LP part of BLP has published the image on his social media accounts and his campaign website, and he's commercializing this item of government property by selling T-shirts, mugs, koozies, bumper stickers and who knows what else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I had this added to the article but it was reverted. I believe this is relevant because it shows how much of a habitual liar he is:
In August 2023 prior to his booking at the Fulton County jail, Trump self-reported to authorities that he weighed 215lbs (pounds) and was six-foot, three inches tall. This came just months after he told New York authorities in April that he weighed 240lbs and was six-foot, two inches tall. [1]
Anyways, I guess the biggest liar in American history covering for his bruised ego isn't relevant. Thanks! conman33 ( . . .talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
References
While his claims about the presidential election in 2020 being invalid may be false many people believe in it so I wonder if it's a good idea to outright say they are false 173.30.85.91 ( talk) 01:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There’s a sentence in the lead that says, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests.” I suggest editing it to say, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests and rallies, for and against.” Trump is famous for rallies in his favor, and of course for protests in his favor such as the one that got out of hand on 1/6. The present language only suggests protests against him. I never went to either type of protest or rally, but I do protest this sentence which could use more NPOV. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
got out of hand on 1/6. That suggests it was not as planned as evidence shows. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think 'for or against' will work at this time. The evidence in this article supports the sentence as is - without change. I don't recall any significant protests specifically for Trump's policies. Also, the rallies are support for Trump and not his policies. I don't recall Trump discussing many policies during his rallies. So, I agree we need RS to support the proposed change. Also, the posted article is much appreciated. But I don't think changing the sentence under discussion is necessary because of the article. This sentence already broadly covers that, which is the function of a lead sentence. Maybe add a blurb in the body if it's needed. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I have presented a template for some of notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed during the Trump administration that are not currently noted on at all within the 'Presidency' section of his profile. I mentioned these two pieces of legislation because these two pieces of legislation are in fact notable enough to be mentioned underneath the presidency section of his profile. At the minimum these two pieces of legislation are roughly equivalent to the PACT Act which is mentioned underneath the Presidency section of Joe Biden.
The First Step Act, is in fact a pretty notable piece of legislation regarding criminal justice reform and the first piece of criminal justice reform that has been passed in decades on the federal level. regarding claims that it is "not a big change in U.S. criminal justice system (federal prisoners are a relatively small portion of U.S. prisoners)" I feel it's important to be reminded that, constitutionally speaking, the U.S. federal government can't pass major laws relating to how States can impact their federal guidelines. Just take a look at the Respect for Marriage Act or even DOMA. By using that same logic those two laws only relate to the Federal Governmental recognition of Gay Marriage which do not by any means make up a majority of same-sex marriages are not notable enough because very few people get married federally and it doesn't make a large impact regarding mandating Alabama to recognize gay marriage. Both pieces of legislation are still prominent because they are roughly the max (albeit in opposite directions) ways in which the Government can show approval over the issue and provide or prohibit protections. The Federal Prison system is ultimately the only prison system the Federal Government can make notable changes to. Not the states. The First Step Act was a notable piece of legislation as it was the first time in Decades that there had been any real domestic legislation regarding prison reform in this country. Especially being the first that wasn't explicitly pushing for the War on Drugs. Conversely, The Great American Outdoors Act is notable because it is, objectively speaking, the biggest increase in funding towards the National Park Services and Conservation in Decades. I even made sure the sources provided regarding this information were specifically non-profit environmental groups like the Property and Environment Research Center and the National Parks Conservation Association.
I understand there is some debate as to whether to include these pieces of legislation under his presidency over the question of whether or not he was "actively involved" in the passing of it but to be honest I think that's holding Trump to a higher standard than prior presidents. Looking specifically at Presidents Biden and Johnson, both of them get credit for pieces of legislation that were seen as notable without a lot of personal involvement on their end. For example, the Respect for Marriage Act was a notable piece of legislation regarding federal recognition of Gay marriages but that was a largely senator-led piece of legislation spearheaded by Tammy Baldwin and Kyrsten Sinema. While he did say he supported it, President Biden was not in the trenches lobbying for it. That is very much in line with Trump's handling of some of this legislation too. In addition, the Immigration and Nationalities Act signed under Lyndon Johnson specifically reference his lack of involvement within the drafting of the bill and even specifies his support for a weaker version. In both cases both presidents have it referenced under the 'Domestic Policy' section of their presidencies. I mean, Joe Biden has the Postal Service Reform Act listed under his presidency as a notable piece of domestic policy which, while I'm not denying in any way that it is not notable, does not necessarily have a presence within the public consciousness and isn't likely to be mentioned in any biographies when historians try to boost up their presidencies (think Nixon getting revision decades later by people lauding OSHA and the EPA). I don't really see how these two pieces of legislation are really any different. Especially when the Time and NPCA articles I referenced for the First Step Act and Great American Outdoors Act respectively both show that there was some personal involvement by Trump regarding them; even if those two forms of involvement were the result of heavy Celebrity Lobbying by Kim Kardashian or trying to stabilize Western Republicans reelection chances in 2020.
I'm by no means trying to give Trump a bunch of undue credit and proclaim him as some Conservationist Criminal Justice Reforming Icon, but there really should be some mention of these two more notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed under his administration. Like, the reality is, these two pieces of legislation are of roughly equal weight to those such as the PACT Act or even the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which passed underneath Biden and as such are mentioned under his article. Again, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act being, once again, a *Federal Statute* that does not address "a big change" but is itself notable for being the first notable piece of legislation regarding the issue in decades. These additions are by no means meant to make Trump look like an angel or anything. There's a reason some of those minor pieces of legislation like that one animal cruelty bill people bring up sometimes isn't being mentioned here (because it's so incredibly minor and would be nothing but fluff). But these pieces of legislation are in line with others mentioned underneath prior and subsequent administrations and I do think they deserve some lines to be noted on with.
In December of 2018, Trump signed into law the
First Step Act. The bipartisan bill was designed as a way to reduce
recidivism rates and reduce the federal inmate population while maintaining public safety.
[1]
[2]
[3] The bill received significant attention through the activism of celebrity
Kim Kardashian who made heavy pushes for the Trump Administration to give support to the bill alongside the
commutation of various individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
[4]
[5]
In August of 2020, Trump signed into law the
Great American Outdoors Act.
[6] The law would provide permanent funding of up to $1.9 Billion dollars per year for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund while providing temporary funding over five years to address maintenance backlog issues and the repair of
National Park services.
[7]
[8]
LosPajaros (
talk) 20:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
References
In December 2018, Trump signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act, which aimed to reduce recidivism rates and the federal inmate population while maintaining public safetyand
In August 2020, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided five years of funding for maintenance issues of the National Park Service.starship .paint ( RUN) 03:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Trump would sign things that were put in front of him, and he would forget to sign things that aides surreptitiously removed from his desk.I am afraid that this is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent for other presidents. If a policy is notable and WP:DUE, then it does not matter how fast he signed the bill as it still belongs to his administration. I'd like to see if we can give more consideration to the policies mentioned by @ LosPajaros and find a way of incorporating them. Ppt91 talk 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
considerable amount of work done by an editor with less experience: I tried to read that work but even with the paragraph breaks added by Starship it’s still a WP:WALLOFTEXT that is WP:TLDR. The question is whether the signing of the policies is
notable and duefor this article, Trump’s top bio. We should be comparing it to other content in this bio (based on amount and quality of coverage in RS), not to content in the bios of other presidents who do not have 1,001 Wikipedia articles on, well, everything, e.g. Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump and Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. (The "editor with less experience" has themselves dismissed efforts by an experienced editor ( [10], [11]) to trim their excessive description of the voice sample they recently added to the infobox with the bland summaries "description", "voice box specification", and "formatting" ( [12], [13], [14]) instead of discussing the matter on the Talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Are these really signature pieces of legislation he will be long remembered for, or is this just routine? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I've done some trimming in the social media and false and misleading statements sections. Bold means removed and green
means tweaked or moved.
Before Social media:
Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during the 2016 election campaign and as president until Twitter banned him in the final days of his term. Over twelve years, Trump posted around 57,000 tweets,
often using Twitter as a direct means of communication with the public and sidelining the press. In June 2017, a White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. Trump often announced terminations of administration officials and cabinet members over Twitter.After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods,
Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checking warnings in May 2020.In response, Trump tweeted that "Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative[] voices" and that he would "strongly regulate[] or close them down". In the days after the storming of the United States Capitol, Trump was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of Trump's social media presence, including his 88.7 million Twitter followers, diminished his ability to shape events, and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump's early attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following.
On November19,2022, new Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's account. Trump did not use the reinstated account until August 25, 2023, when he posted his booking photo from Fulton County Jail.
Before false statements:
As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year.He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.
Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, such as his claim of the "biggest inaugural crowd ever".Others had more far-reaching effects, such as his promotion of unproven antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19 in a press conference and on Twitter. The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia.Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror",served Trump's domestic political purposes. As a matter of principle, Trump does not apologize for his falsehoods.Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies. The first time The Washington Post did so was in August 2018, when it declared that some of Trump's misstatements, in particular those concerning hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, were lies.
In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.
James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitterwhose removal Specifico didn't challenge. Trump's absence leading to a dramatic decrease of misinformation seems more important to me than e.g. quoting Trump's response after Twitter had started to add fact-checks to his tweets. I haven't looked at other text you removed/changed and Specifico challenged. It would be much easier if you trimmed sentences or paragraphs individually, with edit summaries stating your reason(s). This is how I would trim:
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. [1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year. [2] He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later. [2]
Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. [1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year to 39 per day in his final year as president. [3]
References
database
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia." can be removed. The thing about how the media doesn't call them lies; ok? This distinction is more to do with the media than Trump and should not be included in this summary level detail; furthermore, the Stormy Daniel's thing is undue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods...on the Twitter paragraph. It provides vital context for both why and when Twitter acted, in terms of the overall timeline, and gives context for everything below that in the section. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)