Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content 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. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: 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. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Lead tags excessive detail

Jury of 12 peers convicted him on all 34 counts of felony and he finally won the popular vote. :p AP news report on 'hush money' trial jury verdict

I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?

• Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal: He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.
• Felony counts. Current version:

  He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

  Proposed version:

  He is on trial in New York for falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida for mishandling of classified documents, in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and in Georgia for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Lead tags excessive detail

• Remove both tags. Environment: Keep the sentence. The NYT lists 100 environmental rules that were officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back and more than a dozen other potential rollbacks in progress but were not finalized by the end of his term. Felony counts: Keep the numbers. That's an astonishing number of felony counts for anyone, let alone a former president currently running for another term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep tags

  In the first one, I would keep part of it: He weakened environmental protections.

  In the second one, I would reduce it to: He is currently on trial in several criminal courts for activities related to his presidency and business.

  Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That misstates the crux of the crimes. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I’m with Bob. Explain, please. 2600:100F:B128:E671:FD74:13F0:D870:3184 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• The tags are currently appropriate, but I would support Bob's resolution. The purpose of the lead is not to collect things that are astonishing, but to present a balanced and proportionate summary of the article. Given the length of this content in the article body relative to the article as a whole, Bob's version is much closer to proportional than the tagged version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Bob's version is an improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Bob’s version. Convictions are more serious than accusations, so mere accusations should not be detailed in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, retain current version of text A few editors exhibit a zeal to trim this article in a belief that sacrificing detail in exchange for some nebulous, ill-defined goal of "readability" is a desirable goal. It is not. The subject of this article is a complex and extensively, extensively-written about individual. There's a lot to say, and we do the readers a disservice if incomplete coverage is presented to them. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Readers would not be ill-served by having to go to linked Trump sub-articles for much of the detail currently in this article. It's less about readability than proper hierarchical structure and reduction of redundant detail that has to be coordinated between articles. Many editors find it difficult to grasp that this article is merely the trunk of a large Trump tree, and the sub-articles are there to be read by interested readers.

  And who knows how many readers want that level of detail? I probably would not, preferring the executive summary. I'm solidly uninterested that Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (multiply by ~200 in the Foreign policy section alone), but I might want a four-sentence summary of Trump's foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran (which I can't get at any other article). The "disservice" is in not giving me the kind of information I seek. If a reader doesn't want that much detail, yes, it does get in the way and readability does become an issue.

  "Summary" does not mean redundantly duplicating the most important details, which is what this article currently does; rather, it means substantially reducing the level of detail—providing an overview. No doubt, it requires a skill not possessed by many editors, certainly including me. But it is not un-doable. We've got some smart and talented people around here. All it takes is a change in mind set, which is years overdue. (Inserted 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) after replies.)

  Otherwise, no opinion on this specific issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, it's about items in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think Zaathras is too competent to refer to "incomplete coverage" in the context of the lead alone. That's a newbie mistake approaching absurdity. If I rambled into an off-topic tangent, apologies, but Zaathras opened the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It was about everything, Bobs. You know what they say about assumptions. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, no further trimming needed. The subject is possibly the most-covered politician of recent years, and as such the level of detail is justified. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  The level of detail in these particular statements is disproportionate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove tags to prevent misleading omissions in trimming. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a version that is more proportional that would not, in your view, result in "misleading omissions"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: ↑? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the environment sentence the same, but enact the proposed version (not Bob's version) of the felony sentence. The lead should be a less-detailed summary of the article, explaining the important bits. The important bits to the section about felony charges are why he is being prosecuted, not the exact list of charges. This should be obvious. @Cortador: This level of detail may be justified in the body, but the lead should be a quick, short summary of the whole article. We would still mention all of this in detail in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Obvious" is just about the worst argument one can make. Here, it is both self-contradictory and incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416, Riposte97, and Anythingyouwant: Is this version amenable to you also? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your "this version" says, "He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions. Trump pleaded not guilty." Yes, I'm amenable to that, it's simple, and of course the trial result in NY will be coming soon, and that result will be more notable than mere charges. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Riposte97 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's an improvement. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers: work for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The current version (starting at "He is on trial" and ending with "all charges" at the end of the paragraph) comes in at 79 words. Your proposal gets it down to 27, but we lose all description of the charges. I'd prefer a 50ish-word summary along the lines of

  He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions—he is charged with falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and multiple offenses related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty.

  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the tags for now, but I do hope we can agree to removal when this discussion is concluded (even if the conclusion is a petering out). I think the environmental line is fine as is, but I would like to see the criminal case content trimmed down. I think we can present the indicted charges in aggregate (is "state-level" too imprecise a descriptor if DC is included?) and I don't think we need to mention which states are associated with which charges. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like we have consensus for some case trimming, though not sure if recent events may have changed folks' perspectives on what that should look like. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits

This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024. tells us little about the case. Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article and was DOA, maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please include DJ Trump's new official title as first convicted felon in American history..? Much appreciated.. Dynamic City (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And in a twinkling of an eye the offending passage has vanished.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

why is reality offensive? He is the first convicted felon who was president. 162.142.106.251 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove the St. John's photo-op?

I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

One, maybe two sentences, with a piped section link to Presidency of Donald Trump#Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church. If they want even more detail, that section links to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. One click for each successive level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It's only four sentences now, with one of the iconic images of his presidency, autocracy on the march for the purpose of a photo-op with a Bible, straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, Re "...straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics." — That's an interesting point that the Capitol was not properly protected Jan 6 because of the St. Johns photo op. Why isn't that point in the Trump article's St. Johns photo op section, Jan 6 section, or the Jan 6 article? Is that point made in any source? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It may not have been the only reason, the other being, "patriots, supporting our president, they wouldn't attack Congress, would they"? Online sources: NYT, HuffPo, Politico 2023, The Week, Politico 2021, Newsweek (William Arkin), Bloomberg, CNN, Bulwark, VF, Rollcall. Plus various books, some having been mentioned in previous discussions but both the discussions and the passages in the books would take me much longer to dig up. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good work. I looked at just the first two sources but that was enough to convince me that the idea was out there. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: According to the guideline WP:SYNC, which provides good guidance for writing this section. We can't follow it to the letter in this situation, but we should follow the general principles. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The people who wrote WP:SYNC haven't met Donald Trump. A "high-level or conceptual article" this definitely ain't, it's the story of grandfather's old ram, except it's not funny, and Grandpa may nap a lot, but he keeps waking up and adding to the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because an editor speculates about what might happen months from now? At least wait until there actually is such cause. There are many less significant nuggets for any future trims. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Which less significant nuggets are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For example, the whole Religion section could be cut. Most of the blow by blow of his purported business career could be summarized in 3 sentences. Etc. If future need be. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, made a start on that. Do you have a summary in mind for the business career piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't speculation to note that we will need to add things to this page on the 2024 election, such as who wins and whether or not the loser accepts the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's speculation to predetermine what might be triimed for any reason in the future. But its also jumping the gun. If the church bit were UNDUE, we wouldn't need to trade it for a player to be named later. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing two candidates for trimming. #1: As I mentioned before, this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign mentions a mere blip on the 2024 campaign radar that is forgotten by now: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. #2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I gather you don't support my suggestion, either. The philosophical difference rears its ugly head again. Where something is covered in a sub-article, that article should be the main go-to for readers. The function of this article should be to provide an easy path to the sub-article content, and it should do so in the form of a high-level summary/overview containing a link: substantially higher-level than we currently use for this topic in this article. Side benefit: Any subjective article length issues vanish forever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's apply that to all the business deals. Keep just the core: 1) Commodore Hotel, 2) went broke, 3) pivot to The Apprentice. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove, unsure. Reduce sure. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This section has already been reduced to the detriment of our readers. The page is indexed so that readers are not burdened by length nearly as much as by omission and cryptic framing that omits significant detail. Once we send a reader to a subpage, and maybe to a secondary sub-subpage, they are off the track of the main page. It is far easier to navigate the main page table of contents than to blow up one's browser with a fog forest of detail pages. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's only four sentences, and the picture. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Also??" What? There is no guideline that requires us to remove or further weaken this short section. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think giving an entire section to this one controversy, with as much information about it here as at the more specific presidency page, violates SUMMARY. It also arguably violates UNDUE by giving more weight to this one incident than most sources do. It hasn't received much attention since it happened, and is not one of the controversies that I have seen any source bring up as a point against Trump, and they have brought up a lot of his old controversies from his presidency. I see no reason for this one incident to get an entire section. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For more specific examples, we have one paragraph about his opinions on the ACA. We have one sentence about his thoughts on NATO. We have one sentence about his stance on abortion. All three of those get much more weight in the media than the photo-op. In light of that, per UNDUE, we should either increase how much room those three topics get or decrease the amount of room the photo-op gets. The first one is not feasible and would lead to serious size issues, so that leaves the second option, which is to remove most or all of the information about the photo-op. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

NATO and Abortion should indeed be expanded.Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't received much attention - you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".

Work cited
Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.

The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Baker/Glasser are journalists who didn't write a biography, and didn't write a summary of Trump's presidency; they focused on one aspect of Trump's presidency: the division. DFlhb (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Google News, it would appear that you are correct about it remaining relevant. I still feel like it should be trimmed, but count me neutral on removing it entirely. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I googled the keywords, Lafayette Square trump. As one can see from the hits, a year after the incident there were a lot of mainstream articles saying that Trump's photo-op was not the reason the park was cleared. The section seems to be misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't just look at the headlines popping up in Google searches. This was similar to Barr spinning Mueller's report into "total exoneration" for Trump, and some mainstream media fell for it. Some, e.g. NBC, reported that "Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening". See Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Inspectors General. See also WaPo, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at what you presented and it doesn't show that the park was cleared because Trump wanted a photo-op. Thanks for the effort, but our article section is misleading on that point. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We merely say that federal law-enforcement officials cleared the park, and then he walked and posed. The fence was scheduled to be erected later that evening, after the curfew set to begin at 7 p.m., and it actually was put up later that evening. The Trump-appointed IG at DHS refused to initiate any audit, investigation, or even review of the actions taken by DHS personnel, the DOJ IG’s report is still pending as of this month, and the Interior Department’s IG conducted a limited review , according to their own report. See WaPO, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"We merely say..."? It's a false implication supported by obsolete references that were contradicted a year later. Just the raising of questions by the sources that you just presented isn't enough compared to the many mainstream reliable sources. Those many sources didn't seem to come out to support theories and analysis that the park was cleared for the photo-op, after it was shown that it wasn't. I'll wait and see what others think and let the chips fall where they may. Again, thanks for your efforts. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The section clearly conveys a false implication. It needs to change. Riposte97 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be an incident that gathered a lot of attention at the time, but on investigation wasn't that earth-shattering. It has its own article and doesn't need to be discussed here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• It should be like 1 sentence (2 max) tucked somewhere in this article. Not in it's own subsection. I've long supported the need for a general BLM/protest subsection where it could be, but I'm to lazy to write it right now and it probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials. SPECIFICO talk 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Riposte97, Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, and Nikkimaria: I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It could go in Social issues. On balance, I'm unconcerned that it isn't covered in that section's linked "main article". It's covered in the grandparent section's main article.

Looking at the Presidency part of the table of contents, I'm struck by the glaring contrast between Lafayette Square and virtually all of the other subsections. They're all general in nature until you see section 5.5, then—BAM—a section about a single isolated event. UNDUE seems clear.

I'm inclined to change my support from 1–2 sentences to 2–3; one seems excessively low unless the sentence is made cumbersomely long. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep I think reducing to a couple of sentences is appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove or 1-2 sentences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Mandruss makes a good point about Lafayette Square compared with other subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removing it altogether; it's undue and the wrong level of detail for this article. No subsection should be dedicated to individual events - DFlhb (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying a subsection, I'm saying a sentence or two somewhere in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying it should be removed; that aspect of his presidency should be covered as a synthesis (by the dictionary definition; from a good recent source/sources) and it would deserve a brief mention (1 clause) as part of that - brought up as an example to illustrate a more general point, not mentioned in an isolated fashion. The latter isn't worth doing at all, since we can't expect readers to figure out that larger point all on their own - DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The former would be an example of moving it to another part of the article. I am simply trying to figure out where to put it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't like my idea, I take it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Your idea is good. I am just making sure nobody else is opposed to that specific placement. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, autocratic behavior of the president as a social issue? I realize something needs to be done with the section; it doesn't reflect that this incident led or contributed to the poor preparations for and belated response to the Jan 6 rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that is clear about the response when you take into account most of the discussion of causes in reliable sources, rather than just those that advance that theory? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it'll do for now, unless and until there is an "Autocratic behavior" section. There are more important things at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this theory common among reliable sources? If so, how common. If it is only forwarded by a few reliable sources, and the majority have no mention of it, I doubt it would be DUE to mention here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have performed the merge. We can work on the specific wording a bit more if needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do that. Please reverse your merge. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Now I have looked at that edit and it is not merely a chang of section you called a merge. Key content - the content that explains the significance of Trump's role - was removed. Please yndo these edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There was a very clear consensus saying that only one or two sentences should be given to this incident. Only you and Space4 opposed. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Approve of QuicoleJR's merge. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC

It's not a "merge" when the significant paragraph that explained its significance was expunged. SPECIFICO talk 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. The place hasn't been the same without you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The consensus was to reduce the amount of information given to the incident. A merge that trims out a bunch of information is still a merge. I will say it again, the vast majority of editors supported doing this. You are one of only two that did not. Consensus does not require every single person to agree. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The before and after texts side-by-side - gone are: the image (its removal wasn’t discussed at all); mention of the Bible while leaving the cryptic text that seemingly for no apparent reason religious leaders condemned the photo-op. Added was "subsequently", implying that the violent removal of lawful demonstrators ("lawful" appears to have been removed sometime in the past) had nothing to do with Trump’s excursion to the church at that particular time. Before:

Trump and group of officials and advisors on the way from White House complex to St. John's Church

On June 1, 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[263][264] Trump then walked to St. John's Episcopal Church, where protesters had set a small fire the night before; he posed for photographs holding a Bible, with senior administration officials later joining him in photos.[263][265][266]

Religious leaders condemned the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[267] Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police-brutality protesters.[268

Post-merge:

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials controversially used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[258][259] Trump subsequently posed for a photo-op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church,[258][260][261] drawing condemnation from many religious leaders.[262]

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I replaced subsequently in the sentence and added mention of the Bible. However, the consensus was clear that we should only give this a sentence or two in this article. Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. Therefore, I think it makes sense to exclude the image. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The more you repeat yourself as the one who should find consensus for your own proposal, the less credible it becomes. Your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. You removed the co to t of the controversy that makes it both noteworthy and NOTABLE. Have you read the prior talk page discussions you claim to have overturned with this thinly-reasoned voting thread?. Patience is a virtue. This reversal of prior consensus is not supported at this time. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I looked through the most recent discussion I could find, being from a year ago. It seems to have had a similar dynamic, where only you and Space4 supported retaining the subsection. There are ten other users in this subsection who would disagree with that position, and the situation was similar a year ago, in that stalled discussion in archive 154. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you notice I asked about the discussions - plural? On reason there's diminishing response to non-policy-framed trim requests is that the longstanding consensus was settled via nearly a dozen past discussions. Your only rationale is that some new future content won't "fit" in our virtual closet here. If the content were UNDUE, you could argue that -- but you haven't. In fact, you appear to have proposed removing this key content even before reviewing RS, which you later googled. And militarized civil law enforcement is not a "social issue" anyway. It is a constitutional issue. If you can cite the other 3 times presidents wanted to shoot civilians, etc. you would have a case that this was no big deal. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and that is still true if you do not agree with the consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IDHT, you are repeatedly declining to respond to the points raised in favor of the status quo ante consensus. Your task is to refute those. "Consensus can change" is not in dispute here. It's one of several straw man deflections you have made. You may find it helpful also to see WP:NOTAVOTETo establish a new consensus, you or somebody, anybody, would need to provide policy- and RS-based arguments for an improved version. Have you now had a chance to review the many talk page discussions I referenced? To cut key context and reframe this event as a one at the bottom of a diverse "social issue" list, you would need to respond on the crux of the disagreement here. Otherwise, the status quo consensus will eventually be sustained. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The guideline WP:SIZE says that articles over 15k words (like this one) should be trimmed or split. WP:SUMMARY, another guideline, says that we should summarize the most important parts of his presidency. We should not give as much detail to it here as in the presidency subarticle. That is my main policy argument, and has been since the beginning. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, your response seems to imply that someone would have to satisfy you specifically to get this change passed, which is certainly not the case. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. I'm unaware of a WP policy. Editors pretty much illustrate what they want. On Clarence Thomas's fan page, e.g., you'll find an example of a large image illustrating one sentence and another image of a building not mentioned in the body. This image illustrates that Trump "— furious about criticism that he has not done enough to stop the protests and violence that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis — told senior advisers Monday that they had to show they could control the streets of Washington and the area around the White House". After his Rose Garden speech (As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property. We will end it now.), he, senior cabinet members, and the U.S.'s highest military officer in combat uniform forayed across the square to the church. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a brief history of editors' positions in this thread:

QuicoleJR began the thread with suggesting removal from the article or shortening. Nikkimaria and Muboshgu agreed. Jack Upland suggested remove.

Mandruss suggested reducing it to 1–2 sentences.

Space4Time3Continuum2x and Specifico objected to these suggestions of removal or reduction.

Mandruss was willing to change his suggestion from 1–2 sentences to 2–3 sentences and moving it to the Social issues section.

Riposte97 agreed to reducing to 1–2 sentences.

Nikkimaria more specifically suggested remove or reduce to 1–2 sentences.

DFlhb suggested remove or have one clause elsewhere only if it adds to some other related material.

Slatersteven suggested reduce and was unsure about removal.

QuicoleJR reduced the material to two sentences and moved it to the Social issues section.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers supported QuicoleJR's edit.

I think QuicoleJR's edit is an improvement. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. DUE applies to both text and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bypassing the Presidency article

I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Didn't I already answer that? {{Main}} allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.

Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.

But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{Further}} instead of {{Main}}, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.

Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.

It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Wikipedia. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Computer programming? Wikipedia is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for Economy is Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, for Climate change, environment, and energy it's Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be Donald Trump, Page 2), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.

When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done now, and scope expansion is often counterproductive.

This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of small fire

@SPECIFICO: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Media use of the word "lies"

Until 2018, the media rarely referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

This has more to do with the media than Trump "the man" or whatever the standard is for inclusion here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Donald Trump#False or misleading statements: I believe the standard was that Trump the man got a pass from the media for a long time. Quoting the AP source: President Donald Trump has been accused of dishonesty, spreading falsehoods, misrepresenting facts, distorting news, passing on inaccuracies and being loose with the truth. But does he lie? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this seems like a consensus 22 vio. Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not. We're not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia voice. The question is whether the media referring to Trump's falsehoods as lies is a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are implying two things: 1) that he lies, and 2) that since 2018, the media have called his false statements lies. Neither of those things is justifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if what you say is correct, it still doesn't violate 22. Wikivoice isn't about (subjectively) "implying" something, it's about saying something. Anyway, it's false to say we are implying that he lies. We're simply observing and reporting media behavior (supported by sources, so no OR). As for the precise year, I don't know how verifiable that is, and we could maybe reword to eliminate that. (Unless sources actually say 2018 was the year of the sea change, that is OR.) The essential point is that media avoided the word for some number of years; then they stopped avoiding it. There's little room for dispute about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Rip, we need to reflect the current mainstream view, not an average over the past six years. Current mainstream RS have indeed gotten comfortable dropping the euphemistic framing he enjoyed for most of his charmed life. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, we are not "implying" "that he lies". Rather, we are documenting that RS say "that he lies". That is a fact, and it is our duty to report what RS say. Also, when backed by RS (and we have myriad of them), it is totally "justifiable" to write that "the media have called his false statements lies." It is not only "justifiable", we must do it. That's our job. Whitewashing violates NPOV. (Frankly, IRL, it would be dishonest for anyone to imply that he doesn't lie, but that's another matter. This is about editing here.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotta say you're overstating the case. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." Thus, choosing to omit something doesn't constitute whitewashing. You might as well claim that consensus 22 is whitewashing. Even while media uses the word "lies", we have decided not to do so in wikivoice. I think that shows a healthy degree of restraint. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course we don't include literally "everything". We leave out trivia. This happens to be pretty important, and that's what I'm talking about. We may not use wikivoice in this article for that particular word, but we still document that RS show he lies an awful lot. We can use the word when cited. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Other examples: consensuses 14, 26, 31, 39, and 59 (some decidedly NOT "trivia"). This list excludes a number of consensuses where Trump-negative things are omitted from the lead alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We can use the word when cited. Not in wikivoice, per 22. And the sentence under discussion here is sufficient; we're not going to report that on Junetember 33, 2021, the Washington Post said Trump lies (etc., etc.). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, we're talking about #22, so I am obviously not suggesting we can say it in wikivoice. #22 does not forbid the existence of the word(s) when quoting RS. It just forbids the use of the word(s) in wikivoice.

BTW, you're supplying good evidence that some of these items likely seriously violate NPOV and BLP by giving preferential and protective treatment, far beyond BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, to Trump that we do not extend to other subjects. Editorial neutrality, the core of NPOV, is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. The existence of a "Trump exemption" giving him favorable treatment is long practice here, and it needs to stop. By 2018, mainstream RS finally had had enough and stopped protecting him, and we are supposed to use RS as our guiding star here. We should not ignore what they are doing. The whitewashing must stop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

22 is based on a 2017 RfC. That's quite a while ago now. If there are indeed a significant number of RS either stating that Trump has lied (more likely) or that Trump is a liar (less likely), it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, per my reply to Mandruss, I think you're right. Editorial neutrality is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We should review all of the items on that list that reflect RS' early reluctance to use straightforward language about people and things MAGA. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This is not about trivia, which rightfully should not clutter a lead. It's about Trump's primary modus operandi, the foundation of his business and political careers, the Kool-Aid that is the primary nourishment of his MAGA cult, and his overarching and dominant character trait. Its due weight is enormous, so rather than minimize it, it should be profiled as prominently as RS do it, which is how the body should also treat it, and then the lead reflect the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. No objection from a process standpoint, although I would probably oppose. It does appear to meet the "situation has changed" standard that we have historically required for revisitation of a consensus. It's also a very dramatic change, the most dramatic in my memory, and I think it should require not only an RfC but an RfC with high participation. I.e., if we don't have, say, 30 editors by the time it's de-listed, it should be kept open and re-listed, continuing to re-list until we do. Even if it's trending strongly one way or the other.

The election year timing is unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an election year is entirely irrelevant. The sole relevant factor here is whether the number of reliable sources calling Trump a liar or someone who lies is sufficient to state so in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it's relevant; I said it's unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about what's wrong with Wikipedia in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
issue comes from RS being left wing, that’s what’s wrong with Wikipedia in general 2A04:4A43:529F:D394:7008:E480:EA06:1920 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) You mean that RS present ACTUAL facts, instead of "alternative facts". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment: I check which sources actually stated in their voice that Trump lied or is a liar. I excluded opinion pieces and only went with sources that are not marked as unreliable as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. I did not exclude sources considered to be opinionated by some editors. Pieces that exclusively cite someone else stating that Trump lied were excluded as well. However, if those sources additionally called Trump a liar or claimed he lied in their own voice, I included them. This list is not exhaustive.

CBS News: Donald Trump lied about gaming and Florida casinos

Mother Jones: Trump Lied More Than 30,000 Times During His Presidency. No Wonder We’re Exhausted

CNN: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3 4 5

Mediaite: Reporter Fact-Checks Trump’s Claim Cops Are Keeping Out Crowds of MAGA Protestors: ‘There is One Pro-Trump Person Here’

Forbes: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3

Business Insider: Trump lied during his big abortion announcement and said Democrats want to be able to execute babies and Trump lied about the 2020 election and recycled conspiracy theories in a letter to the Jan. 6 committee after it voted to subpoena him

Daily Beast: Donald Trump Lied, and Mike Pence Could Have Died

The Wrap: Old Tweet Proves Donald Trump Lied About Global Warming

Vogue: Donald Trump Lied About Stormy Daniels. Why Should We Believe He Isn’t Still Lying?

Fortune: Why Donald Trump’s Lies During the Presidential Debate Don’t Matter

Vox: Donald Trump just lied again about opposing the Iraq War before it started. Here’s proof

Slate: Trump Lied About COVID to Protect the Markets, Not Human Beings

Vanity Fair: Surprise: Donald Trump Lied About His Nasty Little Toilet-Clogging Habit

Here's some non-American sources as well:

CBC: How Donald Trump lied his way onto the Forbes 400 richest people list

Hindustan Times: New Hampshire Primary: All the things Donald Trump lied about in the Primary

The Guardian: Trump’s CNN town hall was a mess of lies – and it was utterly predictable

Frankfurter Rundschau: Donald Trump lügt am laufenden Band - Ex-Präsident im Faktencheck

Tagesspiegel: Donald Trump und seine Lügen

Aftnonbladet: Experten: Här är klippet som avslöjar Trumps lögn

Sveska Dagbladet: Så ska vi tänka när Trump ljuger världen i ansiktet

Göteborgs-Posten: Forskare: Trumps lögner liknar en diktators

El País: Trump miente cuatro veces más que al comienzo de su presidencia

Tagesschau: Herr der Lügen and Lügen, Spott und große Versprechen Cortador (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like prima Davie evidence that not only should the media paragraph be stronger, but potentially, 22 should be revisited. Riposte97 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There's little disagreement that the situation has changed, in fact the article already states that. That's all we need to justify revisitation. We're certainly not going to cancel 22 in this thread, and any source assessments should be saved for the RfC, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which: That's how any RfC should be framed, in my opinion... canceling 22 rather than superseding it. We don't need a consensus item to allow something: if it's not banned, it's allowed by default. The link to the RfC would be placed at the end of the canceled item 22, identified as e.g. "Canceled: RfC July 2024".

If there were subsequent disputes about specific content using the L-word, they might warrant new consensus items; but that's different. That probably should be "when", not "if". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Mainstream media appear to continue calling Trump's lies mostly falsehoods, misleading claims, false statements, etc., so our wording still reflects the majority viewpoint, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you basing this on a single NYT article? Cortador (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So who's going to start the RfC? It should be someone who supports the change, which ain't me. Are we waiting for the convicted felon issue to be put to bed? Not a terribly bad idea; on the other hand, the convicted felon issue won't be the last highly controversial and time-consuming one as we approach the election. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous date for hush money jury conviction

I don't have extend protection privileges but the date on the article currently says June 30, 2024 instead of May. SeizureSaladdd (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Do we add infobox criminal after conviction?

Now that he’s been convicted of a crime (in this case 34 counts of falsifying business records), would it be appropriate to add the criminal infobox? I’m not saying to convert from officeholder to criminal, but rather add criminal which would list the charges he was convicted of, his sentence (he hasn’t been sentenced yet, so that’s a moot point right now), and so on.

Now, if this hasn’t already been done, I had been thinking that the category American criminals could be changed to 21st century American criminals since he was convicted of crimes during the 21st century. If you would prefer to retain the current category, that’s fine by me. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic: Not about putting "convicted felon" in opening sentence. It's about the infobox, which is in the upper right corner of the article. Thanks.

I would like to add my strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. Brad (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Not a point of discussion. Please re-read the initial statement. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence as well. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I’m not seeking to remove the phrase “convicted felon” from the opening sentence, but rather put in the criminal infobox showing the charges he was convicted of, his sentence whatever that may be, and whatever else is included that pertains to the case. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Support as well Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. 24.17.114.235 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) It’s a basic fact. I’m not seeking to change that. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) He is a convicted felon. It should be in the first paragraph, or at least much sooner than it currently is, which is buried in paragraph six. Justdoit345 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) The fact that he’s a convicted felon is undisputed. Just saw that the phrase “convicted felon” was removed while typing this, but this discussion isn’t about that, it’s about adding a criminal infobox showing the crimes he was convicted of, the sentence (when he’s sentenced), and other pertinent criminal info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I think it important to mention unanimous verdict and guilty on all 37 charges. Is he now a felon or must the sentencing or appeals be considered ? What source is the most impeccable ? — ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I thought there were 34 charges. Either way, he was convicted on all counts, making him a convicted felon. As for what source, I couldn’t tell you. I look at all the sources. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Under principles of United States law, Donald John Trump is now a convicted felon. The sentencing and appeals do not alter this fact until and unless they result in the conviction being overturned and expunged. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:CD57:995A:FD02:462E (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I know that, and I’m not trying to change that. All I’m doing is trying to get a criminal infobox that shows the crimes Donald John Trump was convicted of, his sentence (when he is sentenced), and other pertinent info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose Not needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8886:5700:7889:8d71:6bcd:d9f8 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your input! Would you like to explain why it's unnecessary? Guninvalid (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) strong support per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Strong support - Obvious fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) The use of the phrase “convicted felon” wasn’t up for discussion, it’s an obvious fact as you point out. What I’m asking about is the addition of the criminal infobox showing the charges against him along with his sentence and other criminal info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think his charges should be shown in the infobox so that the reader has easy access, yes. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that’s why I proposed it in the first place. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes.. and I support your idea. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support I agree completely, I think we should add the criminal infobox to the article because it's useful information that any reader of the article should know. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support to add the criminal infobox to the article. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support the addition of criminal_charges field, which can read something like "First-degree falsifying business records". The criminal_penalty field can be updated once the sentencing goes through. Bgregz (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support adding a criminal infobox. He's been convicted just as every other criminal with an infobox. Should probably go at the bottom beneath his existing infoboxes. Guninvalid (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Template:infobox criminal: "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. [...] Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" -- the person in question is highly notable for his status as former president of the United States, which as of late and going forward, will be intertwined with his reputation as a criminal. Therefore, I believe this to be one of the edge cases in which Template:Infobox criminal can be used.

  However, I agree with the sentiment, and I would prefer criminal fields to be added to the Template:Infobox officeholder instead (there's a fair amount of precedent in terms of politicians-turned-criminal). Bgregz (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would point to notorious criminal. His conviction is international news. I'm not sure how much more notorious one gets. Outcast95 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  John Dillinger, Al Capone, Ted Bundy, John Christie. One felony conviction—for falsifying documents!—does not make one a notorious criminal, international news or not.

  Trump was already notorious, already in international news on a regular basis. So you can't say he's in international news because of this conviction. He's in international news because he's Trump. If one conviction makes one a criminal, there are likely a number of criminals participating in these discussions, including me (I would take offense to the label). Wouldn't it be rich if some of us are hypocritically saying Trump is a criminal as of this conviction, while denying they are? Regardless, you can't put the two debatably true words together and form a whole new concept, "notorious criminal". That is not how language works. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes but he's also been in the news for years for his litigious and criminal activity. It's also tied into his presidency because this was part of his campaign. I would agree if this had come out of left field. But it really didn't. Outcast95 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  34 felony convictions, NOT 1, singular, uno, felony conviction. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the irrelevant correction. Thirty-four counts on what is essentially one crime—for falsifying documents!—still does not make one a notorious criminal. "Notorious criminal" has historically been applied to people who aren't known for much besides their crimes. No matter how much we hate Trump, we can't reasonably say that about him. Key word "reasonably". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Editors are advised that consensus is not democratic voting. Any consensus assessment should ignore votes without arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - No reason why not. Donald Trump has a history of criminal controversies, extending before his mainstream notability, and now is convicted, I would say that is reason enough. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to the infobox per Mandruss. We can mention that he's a convicted felon in the lead without acting like that's what he is primarily notable for, which is not the case and opens a huge can of BLP worms. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh man, totally forgot about the BLP issue… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Light support - While the criminal infobox clearly suits the article well at this point in time, the current info box honestly does its’ job. A criminal box would still work, though. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, the original proposal is to add the criminal infobox, not replace the current infobox. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal. Criminal activities made up the main of his activities throughout his life. Given the present verdict and the recent holding that Trump’s business empire was fraudulent, it would be more appropriate to view him as a criminal than a businessman going forward. Trump is no more a businessman than Al Capone or Tony Soprano.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal. Please learn to separate your personal biases and opinions from Wikipedia editing. We all have 'em, but good editors do our best to check 'em at the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support He has been found guilty Wilmanman77 (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss. DocZach (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support The template has a use case for notorious criminal. Outcast95 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on the criminal infobox per Mandruss. Applying an equal standard to this proposal would also require editing other biographies such as that of Nicolas Sarkozy and Dennis Hastert. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - We currently have broken Criminal parameters on a Politician infobox. I'd fix it, but I'm on mobile til tomorrow. Somebody please do something! –dlthewave ☎ 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the info. Unknown0124 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's exactly the sort of useful information would be in the infobox, so that readers don't have to read the whole article searching for it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support use of convicted felon in as many places as possible _pbp 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No that is not what we do, we should over-egg the cake. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89: That sounds like POV pushing. Obviously we should mention it, but mentioning it as much as possible is absurdly excessive. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Muboshgu please refer to this discussion in relation to your revert of me at Special:Diff/1226584526. TarnishedPath^talk 16:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I see a discussion in progress, not a consensus. There is WP:NORUSH wrt BLP issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the deliberate misuse of the child parameter is a dead giveaway that the edit was made with non-neutral intentions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Template:Infobox criminal: Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose adding another infobox. A mention could be made in the current infobox, like George Santos, but adding another infobox would make the page more clunky, along with Muboshgu's point above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is off-topic here, but IMO the Santos infobox is wrong. Santos wasn't convicted in Brazil. He plea-bargained, and the case didn't go to trial. The terms of the plea-bargain were restitution, and payment of a fine. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to Special:Diff/1226581781 which had the criminal infobox integrated as a child infobox into the officeholder infobox. There's no need to add a whole full infobox when they can be integrated into each other. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is similar also to how convicted Illinois governer Rod Blagojevich's infobox is done. However, Blagojevich's Criminal Information is perhaps his most notable aspect in the modern day, which perhaps differs from Trump. Also convicted governer George Ryan does not recieve the infobox treatment (although perhaps it should).

  The lede with the criminal information suggests it should get a place in the (current) infobox though. Sr Desayuno (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose THis was not his main claim to fame, and it has only been a claim to fame for less than a day (at the time of posting). This should be reserved for people whose notably mainly comes from being a criminal, his does not. It may do, but that is for the future to decide, not ours. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is tied directly to his election. Meaning his notoriety from being elected president is intertwined with his notoriety for being a criminal. Outcast95 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Template:Infobox criminal says the template is "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". Trump was pretty notable before his indictments and this trial and conviction. The conviction currently is headline news, and the sentencing and any future trials will make headline news again, but WP is not a newspaper. It's not as if the article was suppressing mention of the conviction. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Space4Time, and good catch on Template:Infobox criminal saying "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." The same arguments against including in the first sentence flow to this dispute. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions and his notability is in no way derived from his criminal convictions. To include this in the infobox would amount to undue emphasis and recentism because his criminal conviction in New York being in the infobox would not be proportional to the reliable source coverage of Trump or to their proportional coverage in this very article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now but this shouldn't be being discussed separately from the lead. If it's determined by that RFC that his criminality (convicted felon) is a large part of his notability... then yes, it should be added, since infoboxes are intended to condense and display key elements of the lead/info that could be in the lead in a "easy to read format". That said, he is not notable for being a convicted felon, and as others have said, while it may merit mention later in the lead, I do not think it is so much of his notability now to make that infobox a legitimate placement at the top of the page. I support the infobox being included in his criminal conduct/trials sections as appropriate, since I support the addition of infoboxes on pages to summarize the key info of the prose whether they're at the top of the page or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral It's going to be appealed, however, that process might not take long. In the meantime, faith dictates it is technically a conviction at the very least. I don't envy the closer(s), best of luck. DN (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is a defining moment in American history and Donald trumps life. He is the first and only president that is a convicted felon. Catagris (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support, due to Trump's status as both a former President of the United States and a convicted felon being completely unique in history. While Template:Infobox criminal is rarely used except for the articles of people who are primarily known for being a criminal, it's not by accident that the template description says "rarely" and not "never". It was recognized all along that there will be exceptional cases in which somebody is highly notable for some other reason but whose crimes are also notable enough to merit the infobox being used in their article. And what could be more exceptional that a President of the United States being a convicted felon? — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu, Mandruss and, Space4Time. Those who argue the contrary don't seem to realise that the "first US President to be found guilty" are - without seemingly realising it - actually saying the DT is known for being a "US president (who committed a crime)" not for being a criminal (who just happened to be ex-president). The call to use this infobox seems more motivated by the wish to 'make a point' rather than neutrally impart info, which can be communicated in text more efficiently. His conviction is clearly noteworthy, it doesn't remotely approach being the primary cause of his notability, certainly not divorced from his political career, which he broke the law to support. Pincrete (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Mild support I have previously opposed adding "convicted criminal" to the lede sentence of Jeanine Áñez but never had any issue adding criminal convictions in the infobox. My only thought would be to perhaps make it a collapsed section for the sake of length. At the same time, Trump's infobox isn't nearly as long as other politicians, such as Joe Biden. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Mandruss. His crime is only notable (to the level that template:infobox criminal requires) due to his presidency. His presidency is notable regardless. Cessaune [talk] 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I was surprised to find that felony details was not mentioned until the 6th paragraph. This type of information is usually mentioned in the opening paragraph for other criminals. Regardless of the individual, this is basic and defining information that should not be hidden. Bendono (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as the subject's current status does not jibe with the Wikipedia's guideline on the application of the criminal infobox. Honestly, every call to support is invalidated unless they can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Template:Infobox_criminal#Usage should be set aside. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per template:infobox criminal, it is pretty obvious that Trump is not primarily known for this conviction.LM2000 (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Embed into Indobox officeholder: Trump is well-known as a criminal especially after January 6 where it is blindingly obvious, but his criminality is not his primary notoriety. If it was not for his term as the 45th US President, his primary infobox would eventually be Infobox criminal due to his lifetime of crimes and eventual conviction on them. I say that Infobox criminal should be embedded into Infobox officeholder. Anyways, we need the Infobox criminal to be embedded to add highly-relevant information about his charges, convictions, and trials since Infobox officeholder does not have fields for those. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s what I thought initially but I toyed around with it and came to the premature conclusion that two separate infoboxes would be better than one. No idea why. I think, if we can get it to work, we can embed it within Infobox officeholder. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support embedding criminal information into existing infobox. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and procedural close as malformed Self-evidently not WP:DUE and per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and common usage. It wouldn’t be particularly egregious if it was snuck into some subsection far down, but to put it in the lead, this article being an extremely high profile barometer of WP’s overall quality and adherence to the Pillars, should be an intrinsically concerning suggestion to anyone who cares about WP’s reputation.

Furthermore, the question was stated in a way that’s arguably malformed and could have easily been rephrased as a plain yes-or-no question with no background. Also, I don’t see a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion in the section list. @Unknown0124, can you link to where one was conducted?

If this was not a top-tier CT, or if I had WP:SUPERMARIO license to be BOLD, I would have made a procedural close myself. Take a look at the DRN process of drafting RfCs and you’ll see how things are ideally supposed to be done.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence

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.

---

Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Should the first sentence of the article be rewritten in some form to include the phrase "convicted felon?" ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: this RfC proposes to change current consensus item 50. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence)

Oppose "convicted felon" in opening sentence. It should almost certainly be mentioned in the lede, but not the first sentence, as this generally goes against common precedent with regard to individuals who are not primarily known for being felons. Case in point: Chris Huhne, another politician who became a convicted criminal. His conviction is not mentioned in the opening sentence but is still mentioned later in the lede. Even O. J. Simpson, who is arguably known for his legal controversies, is not referred to as a "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. To do so with Trump would definitely be undue especially when compared to previous precedent. Adding the criminal infobox is also definitely undue. 51.9.192.225 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See also Nicolas Sarkozy. 109.184.45.166 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

French law does not have the concept of 'felon', nor the felony/misdemeanour distinction AFAIK, and the BBC source used doesn't use the word 'felon', nor any variant - partly because British law also lacks the 'felony' concept. The BBC says he was found guilty of corruption, for trying to bribe a judge, ie it names his crime.

So apart from the issue of whether Sarkozy is notable for being a politician (later found guilty of a crime), or a criminal (who just incidentally happened to be an ex-president of France). The use of the term 'felon' is alien to French/European law and language and WP:OR, - ie it is saying "he would be a felon if French/UK law had such a term/concept". Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

OJ Simpson was not a convicted felon. Jbvann05 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Simpson was convicted of felony robbery and kidnapping in 2008. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

neat, but also I think putting it in OJ Simpson's page would be largely misleading because he's primarily known for a trial where he was found not-guilty by a jury. Ioletsgo (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

One might argue, however, that OJ’s reputation (admittedly already well-established) was only bolstered for this current generation because of his conviction. Not arguing either way, just throwing that out there. MWFwiki (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jbvann05 yes he was, he committed armed robbery and kidnapping and was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison. 96.27.48.167 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have figures like Rod Blagojevich and James Traficant who have that phrasing in their opening sentence. Capromeryx (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge at least, Blagojevich appears to be more well known for his being convicted of a crime and subsequently serving time in prison. I do not know much about Traficant but it looks like he also became associated with being a "convicted felon" after his time in prison. TuqueAlHuriya (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all the points stated here – there's really no justification for it being in the opening sentence (as opposed to the lede generally) Ary31415 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he is known for not being convicted of a crime ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it should be in the lede but not the first sentence, as the lede paragraph is only one sentence at present. Unless you think there should be a second sentence added just for the conviction or the conviction and some other information? JustReadTheory (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The lede is everything before the 'Personal life' header. --Onorem (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're referring to is the Lead Section; the term "lede" only refers to a lead paragraph. I see people making this mistake all across this thread I just want everyone to be clear about what the proper nomenclature is. JustReadTheory (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you. --Onorem (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:JustReadTheory Note I'm not here to comment on the main issue, just about this issue of "lede" a commonly misused used word on Wikipedia which has no clear meaning, see WP:NOTALEDE. I think you made this comment as about your 10th edit, not sure how you would even comment on this. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Object on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":

Politicians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Silver

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grimm_(politician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ganim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

Other famous people (not politicians):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajat_Gupta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kapoor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Exotic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff 2401:E180:8890:4B32:696C:AA73:F9CB:A615 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

How many of the politicians on that list were only able to become politicians in the first place because of their felonies? Trump's felonies bring into question the legitimacy of his presidential election win and so his felony status must be mentioned in the same breath as his presidency (unlike the others on this list). GREYLTC (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

GREYLTC (talk) GREYLTC (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per argument made by IP. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Um, hello, Dennis Hastert? Former politician/Speaker of the House, convicted felon and sex offender? Probably the highest-ranking official until Trump to be convicted and it's literally in the first sentence. 165.189.255.50 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, since these are not actual felonies; simply politically-motivated misdemeanors that are tried as felonies. EnSingHemm (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Funny, you said the exact opposite thing on Hunter Biden's talk page just now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course Trump's actions were politically motivated — that's what got them elevated from misdemeanors to E felonies, eligible for four years in prison instead of just one. And you're supposed to add your input at the end of the discussion, not jump into the middle. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support due to being established fact, but the reason i came here is that there should be a comma between "businessman" and "convicted felon" 2600:6C4E:1000:82:2477:1348:9236:C933 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not in dispute; the issue is whether the inclusion would be undue weight. See MOS:LEADNO. Firestar464 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We may have to wait and see what the fallout from this is. I have a hard time believing this will not have a major ripple effect that may affect what DJT is best known for. 188.26.221.177 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support

Undue weight with regards to what? Wikipedia is not a place to make a political point but to communicate facts. The fact is Donald Trump was unequivocally convicted by a jury of his peers in NY State without decent from 34 jurors. This is very relevant to a description of a famous figure, especially considering this is a former US President. Omission or obfuscation is censorship. Gnefitisis-3 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support. The fact he was convicted of election interference in the election he won as president supports that it should be included. If it were unrelated to his status as a previously elected official then it would be arguably undue weight. But his felony is interconnected to his status. 2601:602:D200:3520:3D65:15C6:BB00:9CA6 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The convictions today were for 34 counts of falsifying documents not for election interference 100.2.231.36 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Much of a muchness given he's the first president in US history to be convicted of a felony, let alone 34 of them in one go. This is particularly notorious. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The trial is literally about election interference, falsifying documents is how he did it but that doesn't cancel the whole election interference part. 213.220.231.68 (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In order to find him guilty of the 34 FELONY counts of falsifying business records, the jury needed to find that Trump “conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” And they did. So you’re absolutely wrong that this wasn’t about election interference. That was the essential element that took it from a misdemeanor to a felony. Thank you. -Teammm ^talk? 14:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Zeldamaster702 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose far too early to tell if the fact that he got convicted of some crimes contributes equally to notability to the face he is a politician and businessman. My instincts say 'no'. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the businessman would never have become a politician had he not committed the crimes he was convicted of. 47.188.114.197 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to this discussion. He would not have become a criminal if he were not born, but we're not going to put "son of his mom" in the first sentence. Guninvalid (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider it irrelevant. If he is "noteworthy" as a businessman, this convictions mean he was a dishonest businessman, which means it is noteworthy. If he is noteworthy as a politician and President, this is noteworthy as being the only US President in history to both be impeached twice and convicted of felony charges. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still far too early to guess the ramifications of this conviction. It may change what he is best known for being, it may not. 188.26.221.177 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your instincts have no place discussing facts. This is a relevant and obvious fact. He HAS 100 % and factually been convicted. Wikipedia is not a place to posit some political agenda. Gnefitisis-3 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support as being both a president and a convicted felon is one of the most notable things in this person's life, if not the history of the US. I also note the RfC above includes several comments expressing strong support for it to be included as well. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see, if that's a thing I'm allowed to say. He has time to appeal his conviction so he may not be a convicted felon when all is said and done. Additionally, it remains to be seen just how big a part of his legacy these convictions will be. Though admittedly a Wikipedia fight really shouldn't wait for this guy to die or anything so idk Guninvalid (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He will still ultimately have been the first US President convicted of a felony, even if it does get overturned on appeal. That's going to be in history books for centuries. Zenten (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Might as well do and see instead. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

we don't do that here at wikipedia Guninvalid (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a New York criminal lawyer can confirm, but I think Trump is not actually "convicted" until the judge enters the conviction and the clerk finalizes it, which should happen after sentencing. Until that point, the verdict is not an official conviction. Miraj31415 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

compromise would be to phrase it as "Convicted Felon (by jury)" Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If he is acquitted down the road, the entry can be updated accordingly later. The lack of finality to the case is a non-issue. _Currently_ he is a convicted felon. So _currently_ the article should reflect that. SchighSchagh (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per the IP editor above. The first sentence of a biography is limited to the things that make the subject notable. Trump is notable for being (sorted chronologically) a real estate mogul, a media personality, and a U.S. president. Being the first president to be a convicted felon is now a prominent fact, but it's not the thing he's notable for. It should be featured prominently in the lead but doesn't meet the criteria for a first sentence descriptor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He is the first and only President with a felony conviction. If this isn't notable, and if this isn't as notable as anything else he's notable for, then nothing is notable 2600:100C:B035:BD43:845:B310:B512:6D77 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hard to see why being one of 45 US presidents is notable, but being the only one who is a convicted felon is not notable. If anything logically it is even more notable. 2A00:23C8:1E87:C301:FE16:FEB1:F8D:EBE1 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Itsspelledlede (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I posted this above to support including "convicted felon" on

on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":

Politicians: 2401:E180:8890:4B32:696C:AA73:F9CB:A615 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support We should do an independent study about whether "first former president of the US to be convicted of a felony" is among the first things that come to mind when thinking about Trump.

I reckon, it will be for a large chunk of people. 2A02:8109:2240:729:3892:2E56:E685:26CC (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at other pages for US presidents and it seems Trump's is the only one with a declarative sentence as the lede. I wonder if we changed it to the more normal paragraph it would fit more naturally. So instead of reading, He's a criminal, it approaches it much more naturally like the page for Richard Nixon does with his resignation. Outcast95 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

the fact that this talk article has exploded to this point is proof within itself that this event is historically significant/notable. It's even made headlines on CNN. Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support 66.235.229.94 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Would you like to explain why you support this? Guninvalid (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Classifying Donald Trump as a convicted felon in the very first sentence of this Wikipedia article will cause massive damage to the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. It will also discourage readers from reading further if they are looking for a neutral article to read. I agree with Thebiguglyalien in that the first sentence of a biography should be very limited to the things that make the subject notable. I agree with it being mentioned in the lead, but not for the first sentence. DocZach (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact. Stating that would not "cause massive damage to the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole" or harm the neutrality of this article. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact. Hardly an argument for inclusion in the first sentence. If it were, it would be the longest sentence in the history of written communication. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That particular comment did not intend to argue for inclusion in the first sentence, but attempt to clarify a specific reasoning in the comment I was replying to. Sorry for the confusion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon on 34 occasions, that is correct and stating anything else is what is truly partial MrFluffster (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Putting that Donald Trump is a convicted felon is not inherently biased and would not impugn the credibility of Wikipedia, it is a statement of fact. And until, and only if, the appeals courts /supreme court rule that the conviction was in error does it remaining in the opening sentence cause a bias. WeylandsWings (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@DocZach: How do you figure it hurts the credibility of Wikipedia if he's actually convicted of felonies and we DON'T mention something so significant? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: We do mention it in the lead, just not in the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Object* on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":

Politicians: 2401:E180:8890:4B32:696C:AA73:F9CB:A615 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We're interested in verifiability, not "credibility" as a project. We summarize and compile sources. Any credibility would be a reflection of the cited sources and their relative weights within the article. See e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Anonymous-232 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the job of editors isn’t to defend the “credibility” of Wikipedia, it’s to write a good article. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

NO! He is not a "convicted felon" until he is sentenced. This is how US law works. See, e.g. CNBC: Trump’s guilty verdict does not make him a “convicted felon,” however. This label will not be accurate until after he is sentenced in July.. The guilty verdict is not the same thing as a conviction. It's possible (unlikely, but possible) that the judge will "set aside the verdict." Only a judge can convict, not a jury. Gotta wait until July. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He IS a "convicted felon", even before the sentencing. News Outlets are already calling him a "convicted felon" which he would 100% be able to sue them for for libel if it wasn't true.

If you have to wait until the appeals process is over then you wouldn't be able to list half of the serial killers listed on the site as having been convicted of anything, as lots of them have ongoing appeals as well. 2601:483:5200:5AF0:900E:5224:1949:E8D5 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is patently untrue. The jury has found him guilty and the court has accepted and recorded the verdict. In the eyes of the law, he is from this date forward, until and unless his conviction is overturned, a criminal and a convicted felon. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:8C30:724C:3509:F7FC (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

While a judge could, in theory, overturn a guilty verdict and alter a conviction, he is a convicted felon right now. 173.70.32.55 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CNN - Trump is now a convicted felon. He can still run for president

Reuters - Trump is a convicted felon. Now what?

Politico - Now that Trump is a convicted felon, here's what happens next.

No idea why CNBC is saying the label doesn't apply but they appear to be the only ones. 2601:483:5200:5AF0:900E:5224:1949:E8D5 (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post, Trump's lead attorney requested the judge to set aside the verdict immediately after the final count's verdict was delevered and the jury's duty was completed. The judge denied the request and set the sentancing date for July 11 (I think?). So, the judge is not going to set aside the verdict. That ship has sailed. Waiting until all possible avenues of appeal for the convicted felon would mean that anyone languishing in prison while awaiting an appeal would not have his status as a convicted felon recognized in WP in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles Slickjack (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Welp, who am I to argue with MSM, they're all calling him a "convicted felon" even though he hasn't been sentenced yet. So Support. Levivich (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Conviction and sentencing are completely separate legal process. A felon is still a felon, even if he doesn't know the length of their sentence. Being convicted of a felony makes you a felon. Done and done. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between the colloquial definition of "convicted" (after the jury verdict) and technical definition of "convicted" (after the court enters the judgment of conviction and the clerk finalizes it, which happens at/after sentencing). Media is following the colloquial definition. Should Wikipedia? Miraj31415 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment – It would not cause "massive damage" to the project's credibility; this is just FUD. If anything, it imbues credibility by showing that the project does not cave to his rabid fanbase who would petulantly decry the article as partial for stating a highly notable (this is the first time this has ever happened to any POTUS ever), objectively true fact about him in the first sentence. Arguably him being a "media personality and businessman" at this point is both currently less notable and much less likely to be prominently remembered in the future than what we've seen from him in the courts over the last several years. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Trump is a convicted felon as of an hour ago. It is relevant to the article and him. WxTrinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also this will 100% be something he is widely known for in the future, and is honestly American history. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support

I agree it should be shown in the first sentence and known fact. 2600:8807:C953:1200:D1CB:7B2F:414B:1A5B (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. It's one of the main, if not THE most notable thing about him. He's the only former president with this ...achievement. Oathed (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support; if there were several Presidents who had been convicted felons, then placement somewhere in the lede would be sufficient. But he is unique in this respect. Pinkoh1 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP: PRECEDENT on similar articles. A simple at the list of heads of state or government who were later imprisoned article, which includes figures such as Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon, Ehud Olmert, Jeanine Áñez, Michel Temer, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Alejandro Toledo, Carlos Menem, Adrian Năstase, shows that criminal convictions almost never appear in the first sentence of their pages. As the case is already undergoing appeal: it remains to be seen on whether this will be a defining part of Trump's life. At the very least, we should wait to see whether the conviction will be overturned, as the case is already undergoing an appeal and it remains to be seen what will happen. KlayCax (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be revisited, and these articles should have these annotations in the first sentence. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Use Barak Obama page as an example. First sentence is about him as a US President. The second sentence is about something he was particularly special for -- bring first African-American US President. Both sentences are above the portrait.

The same should be done for Donald Trump -- first sentence is about him being a US President. The second sentence (still above the portrait) is about him being the first US President convicted of a felony. Igorlord (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump is notable for being the first and ONLY US President to be convicted of a felony. As such, his felony status warrants highlight early in the article. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment (While it is more as to do with the lede as a whole than the first sentence per se) Precedent is also to note breaks with precedent as significant/notable where they (first) occur. As bases for comparison in this matter I would highlight as relevant (with emphasis added):

• "He was a member of the Democratic Party and is the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms"

  — Sentence 2 of Franklin D. Roosevelt

• "Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal."

  — Sentence 4 of Richard Nixon

• "A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in United States history."

  — sentence 2 of Barack Obama

• "This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote."

  — 4th sentence of Andrew Johnson

while that sentence is not framed specifically around this being the first presidential impeachment, it is included here whereas it is not on Bill Clinton's first paragraph

While Trump is the first and only US president to have been convicted of a felony, it bears mentioning in similar vein as the above. Donald Guy (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose nominator's idea of a label in the first sentence. But support something like this - ie. it should be in the second sentence. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 05:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support because of what's noted in this comment. Donald Trump being the first former president to be convicted of a felony is very notable in its own right and bears mentioning in the first paragraph using this context. Saying "and convicted felon" feels inappropriate to me, but saying something like "the only U.S. president to have been convicted of a felony" provides useful context, clarity, and fits the bar of notability for inclusion in the first paragraph. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. Good point here and below from the same user: Talk:Donald Trump#Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?) Anonymous-232 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support being a convicted felon is indeed precedent breaking as Trump is the first out of 46 president's to be convicted of a felony. Nixon notably came close and is most well known for coming close to being convicted before being pardoned. To not mention Trump's breaking of a historical precedent presents bias when compared to portrayals mentioned above. Editing-dude144 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You stated, "the case is already undergoing appeal", which is patently untrue. There can be no appeal until the court has sentenced the convicted felon, Trump. The convicted felon has 30 days after the sentencing to file an appeal. Please do not make further misrepresentation of the facts. 47.208.13.97 (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support There are two simple facts: 1 - he is a felon. That's irrefutable. 2 - It is of historic significance that a former president is now a felon. Neither of these facts are either controversial or up for debate. Knutrokne (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support because it's notable and being a convicted felon is of top importance to the article's subject. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support If not in the first sentence, certainly in the first paragraph. It’s more than notable enough. Opportunity Rover (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support because Trump's felony conviction is notorious by virtue of being the first felony conviction (technically the first 34 felony convictions) of a former US POTUS. That level of notoriety makes this something that is an undeniable part of what Trump's legacy will be moving forward, and deserves to be noted in the lede. DBalling (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) DBalling (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

A former United States President of the United States? 98.10.117.54 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha. I should have caught that redundancy. :-)

DBalling (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) DBalling (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. Per MOS:LEADBIO "The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person." I believe that the conviction of Donald Trump qualifies for this. GameCreepr (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, but I would be in support of something more nuanced & detailed in a new second sentence within the lede. For example, I propose that the full lede should look 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. He is also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal)."

It obviously doesn't have to be the exact new sentence I wrote above, but I do think that it is important enough to warrant adding a second sentence to the lede. The way I see it, the first sentence in the lede of an article about a notable human should work to summarize them as a person (i.e. their important "titles", like "scientist"/"president"/etc.), with any subsequent sentence(s) specifying notable things that they are especially notable for (i.e. what has happened to them/what have they done that is important enough to include in the lede but that isn't necessarily a title).

Obviously, one could make the good-faith argument that "convicted felon" is a title, but I think that this article in particular needs to be as unbiased as is physically possible due to the controversial nature of the person - and "convicted felon" as a title feels too negatively-charged for something that requires caution above and beyond what is normal. (for the record, I don't like the guy - but that doesn't [and shouldn't] matter in the context of this situation, as I believe it is our job to state facts about the subject at hand as objectively as possible). TuffTareBear (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit/Addendum I did not mean to challenge the objective truth that Donald Trump is a convicted felon (he most certainly is); as such, my last parenthesized comment should have used the phrase "... about the subject at hand as neutrally as possible" (or something to that affect; the point is that my use of the term objectively was erroneous & inaccurate to what I was actually trying to say). TuffTareBear (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit to my edit: something to that effect***, not affect; credibility ruined, life over. TuffTareBear (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of a second sentence, but I can also understand concerns about Wikipedia's credibility and bias. Perhaps a second sentence mentioning he is the first President to be impeached twice? That would be factual, unique, and mentions his issues with the law without bringing current convictions into it. 2600:6C50:7F:B4BC:B5F3:DF59:75C7:E314 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP's credibility and bias aren't put into question when statements of fact are made. Why not both? "First President to be impeached twice and be convicted of multiple felonies upon leaving office." 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@TuffTareBear: "Pending appeal" suggestions that have been mentioned would show obvious bias, imho. In my time here, I've never seen "pending appeal" put in the lede when someone is a convicted felon; it seems to be a novel suggestion primarily used in the case of Donald Trump. In legalistic terms, someone is convicted until an appeal/review/pardon/etc. overturns that original conviction, so unless we really want to go through each notable felon's case and find out whether they've exhausted all their appeals, I don't find it needed at all. AG202 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@AG202: I think you make a valid point here, and it definitely would be an exception for Donald Trump if it were included - though I do think that this particular article warrants some deviation from the norm due to its nature (not that my suggestion is the end-all-be-all solution, or that "(pending appeal)" absolutely needs to be included; I'm speaking more generally here).

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on legal matters - so I definitely think deferring judgement on this to those amongst us who are more knowledgeable on that subject (i.e. 1000% not me) is the way to go. I was moreso just trying to be as fair/nuanced as possible given my non-comprehensive understanding of what's going on; again, I don't like or support the guy - I just feel strongly that this article should be handled very carefully, so I was trying to include all of the relevant stops therein. TuffTareBear (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wh

What about (by jury) instead of (pending appeal)? This keeps it focused on the actual historical event and makes it clear that the article is not saying that there are no appeals pending. Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you believe that his status as a businessman is notable enough for the opening paragraph, while being the first and only US President to be convicted of a felony is somehow not? 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because of a few things. The biggest justification for putting "convicted felon" as the lead is that it WILL be notable. This is not yet what he is mostly known for.

While many will see him as a felon, there are a large amount of people who will see it as a hit piece. The usage of the term "convicted felon" has clear political motives and we still have no clue how the felony will affect his reputation or if it will be notable. It shouldn't be there (yet) DonnieNova (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

IT IS NOTABLE NOW, and unless felony convictions for Presidents become routine, it will always be notable (and even in such a ridiculous hypothetical, being the first is still notable). 2600:100C:B035:BD43:6050:A5E2:8144:4044 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, being a "convicted felon" must be tied directly and heavily to Trump's reputation, not the reputation of the presidency itself, in order to be considered worthy of being in the introduction. That's why it's important to wait. DonnieNova (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you believe needs to happen before it's acceptable to include a statement of fact and notable description in the lede? 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's a statement of fact does not determine whether it is used in the first sentence, it's strictly about how notable it is. Trump is not known for being a convicted felon and it's not what makes him famous. DonnieNova (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

State your reasons please. Kire1975 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

see above DonnieNova (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support This is a historic outcome in the United States, quite noteworthy. He isn't terribly noteworthy outside of NYC for being a competent real estate dealer; he notably has failed several times at this (e.g casinos). He was technically President of the US, but did not win the popular vote and is widely considered one of the worst presidents of all time. His conviction is quite noteworthy. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a historic outcome. So historic an outcome that it already gets its own article. But does it warrant being in the very first sentence? I would argue it doesn't. It should be in a second sentence in the first paragraph, since Trump is known as a president first and a criminal second, at least as of now. Guninvalid (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support because it is a major part of history. Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to be found guilty of a felony. It is relevant to any use of his Wikipedia page that he is both a former president and a felon. Anyone coming to Trump's Wikipedia page to see if he was found guilty should see that he is a felon in the first sentence. AlsoPterodactyl (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

weak oppose mostly because while it's a big deal that he's the only american president to have ever been convicted of a felony, or 34, that still isn't the first thing that comes to mind. his status as 1. former president and 2. american celebrity are pre-eminent. however something in line with @TuffTareBear's thoughts would work. it ought to be in the first paragraph or two BlooTannery (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support First sentence is meant to be a one line notability statement, and being a super high profile and only US President to become a convicted felon is supremely notable and probably more notable than being a 'media personality'. I would concede that it might be in the best interest of neutrality to somehow indicate that the felonies are under appeal (maybe a superscript note?), but the fact remains he is currently a convicted felon unless the appeals courts overturn said conviction. WeylandsWings (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support since it's a very notable development, about a U.S. president no less. Deiadameian (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because it raises concerns about recency bias and neutrality. In the grand scheme, this trial is not nearly as notable as his political and business careers, especially since this guy has been in the news every single day since 2015. Sewageboy (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This would be a special exception for Trump, as he is now factually the first and only US President to be convicted of multiple felonies. There are no reputable sources of bias or neutrality to reference, as all sources that make those claims have a very heavy political bias that leans only in one direction. That is bias.

Donald Trump's unique position as a felonious former US President is far more notable than his business practices, as the only notable business actions unique to Trump are the same actions that led to his felon status. There are hundreds of thousands of business people in the United States, but Donald Trump is the ONLY US President to also become a felon after leaving office. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment – If we're going that route, I would actually argue that, in the grand scheme, Trump's 34 felony convictions for election interference will be far, far more relevant in effectively any future study of Trump than the fact that he was a businessman. A biography of him would no doubt extensively cover that aspect of him, but consider Ronald Reagan, for instance. Is the fact that he was an actor notable? No doubt. Was him being an actor the thing most people write about in reliable sources and remember him for? The amount of material on Reagan's performance as POTUS and the amount on his time as an actor almost assuredly can't even be compared; the chasm is just too wide, and in my opinion, it's pretty obvious the same is true of Trump. As a bit of a litmus test, any middle school history book giving Trump the light of day may passingly mention that he's a real estate mogul, but the absolute bulk of the text would be the absolute chaos that was his presidency and the litany of litigation he was caught up in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

How does it raise concerns about recency bias and neutrality? Kire1975 (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump's felony convictions are inextricably linked to both his business and political careers, as the convictions relate to fraudulent business records and were crimes he committed precisely because he began a political career. Even more importantly that that, his status as both a President of the United States and a convicted felon is completely unique in history. I'm not sure how it can get more notable than that. As such, Strong Support for including "convicted felon" in the infobox. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be in the first sentence and associated with his being president. This may be the most life defining description, only president convicted of felony(ies). 2601:19B:4280:8590:3D29:84F3:8AB0:B400 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support . Either in the first sentence or add a second. The second sentence of Barrack Obama's page points out how he is the first African American president, why would the first felon not garner an important spot in the opening paragraph? 2601:483:5200:5AF0:900E:5224:1949:E8D5 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Before Barack Obama, there had never been an African American president, so he made history as the president. Donald Trump made history by becoming the first felon as a former president. AlsoPterodactyl (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support. This is a fact; we don't change facts based on the opinions of partisan keyboard warriors. Jorm (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose far too soon to say if it's key to his notability. Riposte97 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is not. It is extraordinarily notable right now. I'd like to know how said notability will lessen over time. If anything I think it's credible to say the notability will increase over time. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:6050:A5E2:8144:4044 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is not about the veracity of the claim. The RfC is about whether Trump should be called a convicted felon in the first sentence of the lede of this article. Dege31 (talk) Dege31 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Politicdude Strong Support. Not necessarily in the first sentence, but in the first paragraph due to the historical significance of the fact. Aridantassadar (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Before I explain why, I do want to say I personally despise Trump, so there is a COI.

Donald Trump is the first president to be convicted of a felony, much less 34! That is extremely notable, much more than his business (which, ironically, is the reason for the 34 felony convictions).

To avoid a notification explosion, I didn't subscribe to this topic, so if you want to discuss anything, please @ me. Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose mentioning on the first sentence per @KlayCax and precedent for other world leaders; while its worth mentioning in the lead, we sadly lack a WP:CRYSTALBALL. NAADAAN (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald John Trump is the first President of the United States in American history to be convicted of a felony. How is this not extraordinarily notable. How is this less notable than anything else in the lede. How will this notability ever diminish. Enquiring minds want to know. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:6050:A5E2:8144:4044 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What other world leaders? What precedent? What is the relevance? Kire1975 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support This is incredibly notable. As a note, R. Kelly has the crime mentioned in the first line. Ludus56 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As of when I checked, he actually doesn’t have his convictions in the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

support but also happy to wait and see. I am not convinced by arguments of neutrality or relevancy. it is historically significant that he is the first former united states president ever convicted of a felony - that is incredibly relevant to his career, no matter what the future holds. It is a central issue of his campaign and obviously of great interest. At a bare minimum it should be in the first paragraph.

My only concern is that he is not technically a convicted felon until his sentence is laid down - so I'm okay waiting until then. Carlp941 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the US Sentencing Guidelines: "IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED VIA TRIAL OR PLEA AFTER ARREST BUT PRIOR TO PLEA OR SENTENCING ON THE INSTANT OFFENSE - THAT CONVICTION IS COUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY DETERMINATION."

SOURCE: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf

(Page 1) 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support because it is now of a similar notoriety and historical importance that Donald Trump is a "media personality" than the fact that he is a convicted felon. Contrary to what KlayCax mentioned, there is plenty of WP:PRECEDENT

on the matter. For example, H. Guy Hunt (former the 49th governor of Alabama), Rob McCord (former Treasurer of Pennsylvania) and Mike Hubbard (politician) (former 65th Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives) all have "convicted felon" in the first sentence of their respective articles.

Specifically for Hubbard, a similarly small section of his article is dedicated to his conviction, which albeit being related to state ethics laws, is the ending of a 22 years career, and is rightfully pointed as of importance in the first sentence.Strong support because it is now of a similar notoriety and historical importance that Donald Trump is a "media personality" than the fact that he is a convicted felon. Contrary to whatKlayCax mentioned, there is plenty of WP:PRECEDENT

206.172.194.67 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

]] 206.172.194.67 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Today, a former US president and presidential candidate is a convicted felon for the first time in history. This fact now defines who Trump is. In 100 years, I don't believe we'll remember Trump for being a businessman or a media personality, these things are completely irrelevant in comparison to the importance that he's a former US president who is also a felon. It is an unbiased neutral observation of fact to mention that Trump is a convicted felon and the obvious importance of it means that it should appear in the opening sentence of an article summarizing things about the man. GREYLTC (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: A counter-argument to this is on the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

In the large majority of cases here, the mention to convictions is present in the first paragraph. Felon is a charged them but not unprecedented/ 2620:15C:2C0:5:8963:AA5:8493:4A38 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump is the only person in US History to hold the office of US President and later be convicted of multiple felonies. The felony is far more notable to Trump than any other trait, as it's unique to him. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

None of the politicians on that list were elected because of their felonies. Trump won his presidential election by a very thin margin. It seems possible that if Trump hadn't committed this felony, Daniels would have gone public and Trump would have lost the vote. It's arguable that Trump is only a politician because he's a felon. This is why the felony conviction needs to be in the first sentence here, but might not need to be in other felon politicians' pages. GREYLTC (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This subject was recently discussed at a recent WT:MOSBIO § RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence, and the general consensus (disclaimer: I participated) seems to be that no, we should almost never say "felon" in the opening sentence unless the person is primarily notable for their criminal activity. And even then, we should state what they were convicted for, because "felony" can cover everything from civil disobedience to serial murder. Is there any reason to make an exception here? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll pose @TuffTareBear comment as a potential solution. We could do something like "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal) for his financial fraud in his illegal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels." Guninvalid (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue he is known for being a felon because it is immediately relevant to the presidential race this year. The combination of being a former president and a felon is what makes it important, so they should be written together in the same sentence. It could read, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. On May 30, 2024, he became the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal) for his financial fraud in his illegal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels." AlsoPterodactyl (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support -- the first American president to be a convicted felon is noteworthy as such. Brad (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per IP. It should certainly be in the lede, but not the very first sentence. Being the first President convicted of felonies is notable enough for the lede but is not what makes Trump himself famous.

Nickelpro (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Whilst it's certainly a verifiable fact that should be stated in the lede, it should not be a first sentence descriptor. A first sentence descriptor should not be breaking news. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In terms of a !vote, oppose. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support As a self-described law and order politician, who has called for his opponents to be locked up, his being a felon is very much relevant. (The average US president has now been found guilty with 0.7556 felonies, in case you were wondering). Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me emphasis this point: 45 people have been president of America. Several of them were businessmen, etc. Exactly one of those 45 people has been a convicted felon. Ben Aveling 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what makes a person notable. The problem with his status isn't that it isn't notable or relevant; just that it doesn't warrant being in the first sentence. Trump is also one of only a few presidents who have met with North Korea but that isn't in the first sentence either. Guninvalid (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that being a convicted felon does not make one notable in and of itself. But being the very first President to be convicted of a felony is earth-shattering. Strongly support adding "convicted felon" or "the first President to be convicted of a felony" to the lede. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:6050:A5E2:8144:4044 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, but I would say that if the question was asked about any article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if it belongs in any articles at all, it belongs here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your premises support the opposite of your conclusion. Kire1975 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this as long as it reads factually and encyclopedic. We have precedence for wording along the lines of first American president convicted of a felony after leaving office with an appropriate blue link. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support adding it. The arguments that he's not known for it are irrelevant. He is and will forever be known as the first president convicted of a crime. It's going to be in the first sentence of his obit. It should be added.

Also the argument that people will be turned off by seeing it and not read his article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about facts. He is a convicted felon. That is a fact. Now until or unless it's overturned it should be added. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support If Trump is a "businessman" with most of his businesses failing, he's most definitely a convicted felon. It's absolutely notable as he's the first president to be convicted of a felony. It should be the first line in the lede now. It should be documented across history, forever. 173.44.90.198 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support given that being the first and only President in United States history is significant and notable. Wikentromere (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference which tipped in his favour in 2016 as he was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. If the story had come out it would have ended his chances. ANd he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. 84.203.61.255 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support It is a critical fact; not iincluding it is misleading by omission

Weak oppose per MOS:FIRST: Mr. Trump's being the only former president to also be a convicted felon is highly notable, but, an hour out from the reading of the verdict, it's far less important than the other things mentioned in the first sentence. Also, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, I'd prefer our jubilation not spill out into the article. Rebbing 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We should be careful not to avoid statements of fact out of concern that some opposed would feel it's biased.

And I don't believe any other feature of Trump is as uniquely notable than his position as the first US President to also be a felon. We have plenty other politicians, businessmen, and US Presidents. Trump is the only person in history to be notable for being a former President with a felony record. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment We don't have a policy on whether it is good practice to use "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but we do have Wikipedia:Crime labels which I personally find thoughtful and nuanced, and which speaks directly to this issue. ~Awilley (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Donald Trump has for a very long time now been involved in various trials, which has been picked up countless times by reliable sources. The very first sentence of the article Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump reads as following:

From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.

The sheer number of legal cases Trump has been involved in suggests that the legal system is a highly notable aspect of Trump himself. And as the recent felony conviction directly relates to a legal case he has been at the centre of for a long time, I believe it is only fair and notable to mention his new status as a convicted felon in the opening sentence of the lede. --KingErikII (Talk page) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

Mr Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.

Not mentioning this may omit relevant information to the reader. MrFluffster (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this RFC is not whether or not it should be mentioned, but whether or not it should be in the first sentence of the article. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel so bad for you being the OP where no one understands what's being asked Guninvalid (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference in 2016. He was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. His own campaign team had said that it would he incredibly damaging to this campaign. And he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. 84.203.61.255 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Patience I'm nearly always against WP:RECENTISM. I think it will eventually make sense in the first sentence as it will likely end up being part of the most historically important fact about him. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It already is one of the most historically important facts about him. That horse is out of the barn. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:259A:623F:E408:7704 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The first sentence should be for what he is primarily known for. Just because he is a felon doesn't mean that that's his main point of notability. It should be mentioned in the lead, just not the first sentence. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no trait of Donald Trump's that is as unique notable to him as that of being both a twice-impeached President and also the only former President in history to also later become a felon. Every other trait mentioned in the opening sentence is shared with many other people. Donald Trump is the only felonious President. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any other felons on wikipedia who are not notable for being felons? Please link. Kire1975 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are many convicted felons who are not notable because of being felons. Bill Cosby is notable for being an actor and a comedian. Nicholas Sarkozy is notable for being the President of France. Being a felon or a criminal isn’t the same as being notable because of that status. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support I recommend others look at the List of federal politicians convicted of crimes. Of the five politicians mentioned there who were convicted of felonies (John Dean, Darleen Druyun, Michael Grimm, James Traficant, and Corrine Brown), three have their felonies mentioned in the first sentence (Druyun, Traficant, and Grimm), and the other two have their felonies mentioned in the lede paragraph. As the current lede paragraph for Trump is only one sentence, it seems reasonable to place the fact of his conviction there. JustReadTheory (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@JustReadTheory: I recommend you look beyond that list article at the actual BLPs that it links. I think you'll find a ton more than five felonies, and far less than 60% with the conviction(s) mentioned in the first sentence. Actually, I already did this for you, here. At least your comment came before I did that, unlike some others.

One data point: Frank Thompson doesn't contain any form of the word "felon", but it says he was convicted of bribery and conspiracy and spent two years in federal prison. I'm pretty confident poor Mr. Thompson was a felon, but the list article doesn't use that word ("Sentenced to 3 years" might be a clue) and his first sentence merely says he was an American politician. Seems likely his case is more typical than atypical (I picked him randomly without looking at the article first), but I could "show" that if challenged to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose if "convicted felon" is simply listed alongside "American politician, media personality, and businessman" to appear as if Trump is as well known for being a convicted felon as the other three. I get it. A lot of us, including myself, despise the guy, but we can't use Wikipedia to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Listing all those things together may technically be truthful, but it would be a blatant misrepresentation of Trump's career as to this point. We do not even know yet if these charges will leave a large impact on his legacy. If anything, I would support an edit along the lines of "the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and became the first former president to be convicted of a felony in Manhattan, New York, on May 30, 2024." BluegrassBolshevik (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you boss, how very based 98.240.113.219 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t about him being a felon in the abstract, it’s about the fact that he got the presidency BY engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Trump’s entire presidency was declared illegal yesterday. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article.

Oppose per the precedent of Nicholas Sarkozy. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I have opposed the use of "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in biographies ranging from Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, Elizabeth Holmes, and others. See this discussion from WP:BLPN for more. I maintain my consistency here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose especially if the same sentence fails to explain it’s being appealed. The decision won’t become final until appeals are exhausted, or the conviction is overturned. I strongly oppose mentioning this in the lead sentence without this explanation that it’s not a final decision yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant It is a matter of fact that Trump is now "a convicted felon" until an appeal courts (possibly but no guarantee) may say otherwise. And there is nothing more final than a jury verdict. The possibility of a court decision being reversed has nothing to do with the finality of it all. Otherwise people in prison already serving time for their crimes that are appealing the courts again AND again through the "Innocence project" and other means" (since there is no limit how often you can try to petition the court) would make it impossible for us to ever properly include that notable information on a wikipedia page since according to your own warped logic the decision isn't final until a neverending appeals process ceases (which in theory never ends until the defendant says otherwise, or dies).

Your misleading fallacious logic is beyond absurd. And looking at your editing history, and constant editwarring over topics involving Trump, you are likely too biased to meaningfully weigh in. But I will take the bait.

No, the decision "is final" because in "a trial by a jury of peers, their verdict is a fundamental principle of democracy, which must be respected." The judge was already soon after in a motion by the defense to throw the case out, for which he refused. The simple fact(s) that a judge can nullify a decision at some point, or an appeal court CAN overturn a verdict, does NOT mean the verdict itself is not final. That is a very Trumpian way of looking at it, sure (read: dishonest). But the truth of the matter is that appeal courts are not a round 2 for convictions. In fact, they rely upon errors or rare constitutional issues to succeed if at all, which statistically is rare when you see how many cases are actually overturned on appeal. That the jury was unanimous on all counts and the fact that the defense didn't even bother to put up much or defense (which was their choice) only strengthens a case like this.

But more importantly, you are deliberately ignoring HOW the justice system works. The presumption of innocence is OFFICIALLY GONE once you or anyone is convicted of a crime. Sentencing will proceed regardless of the any possible appeal, and often punishment will commence concurrent with the appeals process. Now, if somehow Trump doesn't manage to get this overturned or delayed in the appeals process THEN we can surely update the article to acknowledge the change. EmmaRoydes (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Your reasoning is enough - Wikipedia is not a battleground. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would only support that if we changed all articles mentioning convictions to that standard. Trump should not receive special treatment. Outcast95 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I appeared to have accidentally erased a bunch of replies when writing my own, but I am unable to restore them due to the high number of recent edits. Can anyone help me in this regard? I'm terribly sorry for this mistake, and I have no idea what happened. --KingErikII (Talk page) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support As others have noted, being the first US President convicted of felony crimes could not possibly be more significant and deserves significant placement. Spoonshake (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Last month's RfC here that Suffusion of Yellow notes provides a nice benchmark, though I imagine this one will have much higher interest and participation so I suspect it can only provide initial guidance (what have other editors recently thought without the "Trump" of it all). I tend to agree with what I perceive as the consensus there, that it comes down to whether being a convicted felon is a central feature of the person's notability. Only time will tell --- until roughly an hour ago it was not a feature of Donald Trump at all, whereas a century from now it may be a primary way that he is remembered ... or not. I think the guidelines on writing an encyclopedia article and not a news article, and on avoiding recency bias, suggest that we should err on the side of putting less weight on this than its current volume of coverage might suggest. On the other hand, removing it from the lead entirely sounds like overkill. I think a good solution for the moment is to have a sentence acknowledging his criminal conviction in the lead, but not in the first sentence. I also, incidentally, think the lead needs quite a lot of work, but that's a separate question from this RfC - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose - Donald Trump's recent conviction very likely is not as notable as his political career, media career, or business career, or the fact that he was president for four years. Adding "convicted felon" to the lede would shift it, in my view, into non-neutrality. He can still appeal the conviction, can't he? Maybe once he faces actual consequences his conviction will be notable enough to mention in the lede sentence. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  He is a convicted felon. That is a plain statement of fact. How does that introduce bias, when there is no mention of anything other than the conviction? Would you feel it's more appropriate if his unique status as 'the first former President to later be convicted of multiple felonies' is listed instead of merely 'convicted felon'?

  And yes, while you can appeal a conviction, it does not expunge the conviction. The record is simply sealed and not visible to the public. Regardless of appeal, Donald Trump will always be the first former President convicted of a felony. Adding "...which was later overturned on appeal." would be accurate and complete, if that update were needed at a later date. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since the beginning of his notability decades in the past until only a few hours ago, he never was a convicted felon. He isn't notable because he's a felon; he is notable because he's Donald Trump. So how notable is the fact that he's a convicted felon? Donald Trump has been known as a businessman (being a billionaire, The Trump Organization, etc.) a media personality (as host of The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice, in addition to numerous books he's had published, including The Art of the Deal), and a politician (having ran for president in two elections, winning the latter and becoming president of one of the world's most powerful countries for four years). I don't see how being convicted in a single case (out of four cases) without even being sentenced is as notable as any of the things I just mentioned. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support He is the first American president to be convicted of a felony, that itself is very notable. TheBsati (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, which immediately becomes one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life. If one opposes this being in the first sentence, we should discuss a broader policy of removing "convicted felon" from pages, which essentially hits every convicted person immediately. There is no exception for being a politician, as Jose Huizar and Mitchell Englander show us, among many others. PickleG13 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The problem isn't whether Trump is a convicted felon; he is. The problem is whether it belongs in the very first sentence, next to his careers in business, media, and politics, which he is definitely more well known for, at least as of 23:30 UTC when I'm writing this. Guninvalid (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is what he is notable for now and forever. Seriously, we're going to be reading stories about his criminal trials and outcomes for years, just as we have been for years already. This is notability, way more than the relatively fleeting mentions in the careers of other ex-heads of state. We can add up the stories and keep a running total of the usage of the phrase, I guess, but I predict it's going to be a long and long-enduring list. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Currently, although politician is by far his most notable position, he is currently more notable as a convicted felon than a media personality or a businessman. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Strong Oppose. First sentence? Seriously?
  Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and genocidal maniac who was the dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945.
  There's plenty of RS support for that, but it doesn't get much less encyclopedic. Eighty years on, those editors are less prone to letting their editorial judgment be driven by emotion. I hate Trump too, but I love Wikipedia more. This is in fact an encyclopedia, not a political battleground. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, look, Godwin's law. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Very astute of you. Beats your "must be known in the introductory sentence" argument below, which isn't actually an argument at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to say that "convicted felon" is just as biased as "genocidal maniac"? Guninvalid (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The point I am trying to make is that the first sentence of an encyclopedic BLP is not for inflammatory, highly politicized labels and characterizations—regardless of any arguments about historical significance, etc. This is holy ground. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Describing Donald Trump as a convicted felon is a fact for which you can easily find hundred or thousands of sources. It's is only an " inflammatory, highly politicized" description if you buy into MAGA narratives. Cortador (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not the one buying into narratives. You have completely missed my point, deliberately or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your point, as you said above, was that a factual description of Trump's status as a convicted criminal is unencyclopedic because the description is " inflammatory". It isn't. It's a simple fact. Cortador (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Simple facts can be inflammatory. They become inflammatory when you insist on pushing them to the first sentence and reducing them to two-word labels like genocidal maniac and convicted felon. This is better addressed later in the lead, even in an expanded first paragraph like has been proposed elsewhere on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Genocidal maniac is hardly on the same level as convicted felon. Trump is a convicted felon unless and until the conviction is overturned on appeal. Putting the label in the first sentence wouldn't be inflammatory; it would be undue because at the moment Trump's notability isn't primarily due to his conviction. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Genocidal maniac has a tinge of bias to it, because maniac is always used with a negative connotation. Convicted felon is a statement of fact. Felon has negative connotation, yes, but not to the same level as maniac. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I am not a supporter of Trump. However, the inclusion of 'convicted felon' directly in the lede implies that being a convicted felon is what he's notable for, which is incorrect. Trump is more notable as a politician and media personality, rather than a convicted felon. However, the reason why my opposition is weak is because I would support an inclusion of the conviction lower down in the lede paragraphs, since the charges are obviously relevant to his ongoing legal troubles. Those who support the inclusion should note that Trump can appeal the conviction, and he will not be sentenced until July. Bandit Heeler (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I tried to add this, but apparently there was not a consensus. Since he is a convicted felon, it must be known in the introductory sentence. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This is a substantial fact that has never before applied to a former US president in the nearly 2 and a half centuries of the nation's existence. The Ewing Klipspringer (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - as this place isn't a Newsroom. Besides, he's appealing the ruling. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Even if a conviction is overturned on appeal, the conviction itself is not expunged. The relevant portions of their criminal record are instead sealed.

  A conviction is a permanent legal process. The conviction is not expunged from someone's record upon a successful appeal. Rather, the person's record is sealed as it relates to the overturned conviction.

  But the conviction remains, from a legal perspective.

  Donald Trump will forever be the first US President convicted of a felony after leaving office. It would be appropriate to add something along the lines of "..., which was later successfully overturned on appeal.", if later updates were required.

  But it is completely factual and unbiased to state that Trump was convicted of multiple felonies. That is now a permanent component of US history. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Appealing the ruling does not make him any less of a convicted felon today. If those were the rules we'd have to wait a decade to call someone a convicted felon. Outcast95 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  My position on this matter, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Neither, has mine. Why, does that matter?2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we always post that someone is a convicted felon in the lead, when it's notable. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This being in the first sentence, echoing KlayCax's WP: PRECEDENT point, would be unprecedented unless it's a person most notable for a specific crime, and even then you would be more descriptive than simply stating "felon". That info will still remain in the Lead Section where it can be more appropriately elaborated. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 23:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Politicdude - we agree. Was I the wrong comment? 162.142.106.91 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support - Normally, I would lean against it, but since the conviction is directly related to his presidency, a conspiracy to cover up, it should be in the first sentence.I am One of Many (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Coming out of Wikipedia editing retirement for this. It's enough to have the information in the lede. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence. GoodDamon (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your reason for believing it shouldn't be in the lede? Trump's status of the only US President in history to be convicted of multiple felonies is unique to him, something that cannot be said of the other descriptors in the lede. He is already highly notable for that fact, and will be regardless of any other accomplishments. 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not what he's widely known for-- yet. Guninvalid (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's international news. The entire world knows he's been convicted. I respectfully disagree that he isn't widely known for it. Outcast95 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The first sentence of biographical articles includes this information. People pointing out the example of Nicholas Sarkozy are working from a bad angle. Sarkozy is not well known for being a criminal, and with his history of legal troubles and now, conviction, Donald Trump is. Also, why should we exclude world leaders from having this information in the lede? It goes against WP:MOS.

Side note, can we do something about these random IPs and unsigned comments? Non-confirmed Wiki editors are putting in their two cents and it is a bit disorganized. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Inexperienced editors are not disallowed from participating in discussions. While their input may not be well-aligned with our values and policies, that is not grounds for removal—the closer will lessen the weight of these comments appropriately. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The info box at the top of this section says

  "Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ; suspected canvassed users: — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: — username (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. or — username (talk · contribs) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{2}}}|sock puppet]] of [{{canonicalurl:User:{{{2}}}}} {{{2}}}] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]). ."

  so there seems to be a way to note those accounts/comments that seem to be used to vote in violation to the spirit of the RfC. not sure if this is something every editor should do.

  WeylandsWings (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support per KingErikII's point. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - His felony conviction will be in the first line of his bio in contrast with his Presidency. List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes includes many office holders who list their felon status in the first or second sentence. Dennis_Hastert, Chaka Fattah and Scooter Libby are three examples. PantsB (talk)
• Oppose for BLP reasons, as not one of the things he is primarily known for, and for risks of WP:UNDUE/recency bias, although it should definitely be mentioned lower in the lead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support It is a major, historical event and distinction in American history. BootsED (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. This isn't covered by BLP; this is a thing that was actually, definitively proven in a court of law, and by not including it in the first sentence like we would for anybody else, we're giving Trump a double standard in fear of criticism. Any other person would have "and convicted felon" in the lead sentence, no question. And more importantly, this conviction is a landmark in the judicial history of the United States, making it even more important. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment "Any other person would have "and convicted felon" in the lead sentence, no question." is absolutely untrue.

  "...and convicted felon" or other mention(s) of substantial criminal behavior is not mentioned in the introductory sentence on the articles of several notable people who are convicted/sentenced felons, including Mark Wahlberg, R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Tim Allen, among several others. Unless the fact that these individuals have been convicted felons is added to the introductory sentence of each article lede of other notable people convicted of a felony, this argument cannot be used as reasoning to propose adding it to this article.

  Don't take this the wrong way; I'm positive that we view Donald Trump very similarly, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of WP guidelines on neutrality. B3251 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  And were those people's felony trials landmarks in United States legal history? Didn't think so. Also, that should absolutely be in R. Kelly's lead, no question.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  And were any of the washed up names you mentioned a first former president to be convicted? No.

  These are actors he was a president. No comparison. TheNarcissistNemesis (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) — TheNarcissistNemesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Indicating criminal status in the lede shouldn't be limited to politicians; R. Kelly and Chris Brown in particular are very well-known for their crimes and yet they are not significantly mentioned in the lede. Just to make things clear, I do Support having Trump's felony conviction mentioned in the lede, even in the introductory sentence after the mention of his presidency. B3251 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Lean Oppose / Wait per Chaotic Enby and WP:BLP reasoning, at least for now. WP:TOOSOON for WP:FUTURE reasons to add it in the first-line introduction (though still should be mentioned in lede for its historical significance), but add if a time comes in the future where Trump's conviction does become an event in which he is significantly known for. B3251 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial.[1] As someone said above, it is "one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life". Far more notable than his past career as a media personality, for example. His life has been defined by these criminal investigations for years (which is even more remarkable due to him having been president), the first felon president, etc. etc.--Tataral (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Chaotic Enby and others. Of course we should mention that he was convicted of these crimes, and I don't think anybody disputes this; of course it should be in the lead. But ultimately, we are thinking about this backwards -- we, as Wikipedians, do not really have the ability to seriously help or hurt a presidential candidate with what we write. Maybe this is true for some ancillary peripheral issues, but for something as significant and universally paid attention to as the actual candidates in the United States presidential election during the few months before the election, no. It is completely the other way around: we are the main people whose reputation is affected by what we write. Bickering over whether it's in the first sentence, specifically, feels like it has little to do with the article, and everything to do with the search engine preview/personal assistant snippet/et cetera, and using it for an epic dunk on le cheeto accomplishes little to nothing in terms of improving the actual experience for readers. jp×g🗯️ 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Donald Trump is notable for successfully becoming the 45th President of the United States. He committed the 34 felony crimes in order to secure the Presidency. Therefore, causally, it is appropriate to mentioning his “convicted felon” label since the felony crimes he committed facilitated his achieving notability as President. Baltakatei 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Mild support per general practice in similar articles. (Strongly support retaining it somewhere in the lead.) I would favor a more general RfC on whether biographical articles should ever mention convictions in the first sentence that are not integral to the subject's notability. I note that the Blagojevich article has been edited just now to remove "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but this remains a very widespread practice even with politicians with much more substantial political careers than Trump's, see e.g. Edward M. Burke. If it's ever permissible to do this for an article on someone who is not primarily known for criming, then it should certainly be done for such a historically significant conviction as these 34 -- but I'm not sure it's ever a great idea from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- Visviva (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Criminal convictions do not become final until appeals have run out and are vacated if the person dies before then: "the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal." Also, calling people convicted felons is a violation of neutral tone and places undue weight on an aspect of Trump's life whose signficance has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the obvious bias in the suggested text would make readers question the accuracy and objectivity of the article. TFD (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Wait — I think that making such a decision during breaking news is a bad idea. This is a large RfC, which may thus carry a lot of weight, so I'm concerned that making such a decision in the heat of the moment will be here for a long time, even though the significance of the event may fade or gain. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Pretty much the only thing that gets this treatment this fast on Wikipedia is birth or death, swapping "will be" to "is" or "is" to "was". Almost any other breaking news needs time to demonstrate notability. Guninvalid (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - not because it's not due for the lead (the criminal conviction is due for the lead), but because it is not due for the first sentence. WP policy is clear that the first sentence of the lead should contain what the person is most notable for. Trump is not notable for being a convicted felon. He is notable because he was president, a successful (even if by deception/lies/fraud) businessman, etc, and a TV personality. His notability is not from him getting a guilty verdict today. That can be revisited at a later date when the "dust has settled" so to speak. To clarify, it is not non-neutral to call him a convicted felon just because he has the right of appeal - he was convicted, and we don't have to wait for him to exhaust appeals to say such. It's also not a problem of bias or not - if he was notable primarily or only for being a convicted felon, then it would be due to include it in the first sentence. But he isn't. Put it farther down in the lead (as it already has been). Any attempt to put it in the first sentence is putting "we must make sure readers know this" above "what is he actually notable for", and that's not okay - I get that Trump and other politics articles are quite polarized due to their real world implication, but we are an encyclopedia, not a political news beat. (multiple edit conflicts resolved during this) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The notability is the fact that he's the first US president ever convicted of a single felony, let alone 34 felonies. 2601:6C1:702:5D80:971F:DF57:B0ED:400C (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Going to note for posterity, and for responding to the IP who replied to me, that the supports so far seem entirely based on either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Almost none of the supports so far have addressed actual policy arguments made by the oppose !votes and of the ones that have tried to, they've said that in their opinion the fact that he has been convicted is "more notable" than anything else. I trust that the closer of this discussion will assign appropriate weight to the arguments being made that do not adequately address our policies and guidelines regarding what goes in the first sentence of a lead. Someone's personal opinion over whether this is going to be notable or not should not have any weight in this discussion - a discussion can be had at a later point to assess whether his conviction in a NY state case was a major portion of his notability, but it is clear from the oppose arguments that it is not yet actually a reason for his notability as a person, period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally fall on the side that what's mentioned in the first sentence of the lede should be the things that individual is primarily known for being (usually professions). People whose notability derives exclusively from having committed a crime are the only ones who deserve "convicted felon" or something similar in their lede, in my opinion. In other words, if you're using Template:Infobox criminal, then having the conviction in the lede probably makes sense.

As an editor focused on Latin America, I worry of the precedent this sets for politicians in other countries convicted of alleged crimes. While claims of a "rigged" or "unfair" judiciary, I think, are pretty unwarranted in the U.S., that's not the case in other nations. Should Lula da Silva have had "convicted criminal" in his lede? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I would like to add that I wouldn't be against adding the information prominently early on in the lede, as has been suggested by other users. Something along the lines of: "A member of the Republican Party, he was the first U.S. president to be criminally convicted." (With a bit more polish, obviously). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the more sensible proposals. The conviction is historic enough that it shouldn't be pushed down to the sixth paragraph. Bremps... 03:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

strong agree. he is the first former-president convicted of a felony. it his most notable feat and accomplishment. no other, past or living, can claim the same feat. of course there are other convicted democrats or republicans. but none have been president--this sets him apart.

part of listing descriptives about something to to uniquely identify it. trump is a convicted felon and former president. this sets him apart from all other US presidents. 81.110.91.101 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

and sets him apart from all other felons. none of been president. 81.110.91.101 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Expand the header. Use Barak Obama page as a reference. His first sentence mentions him being the US President. His second sentence mentions his unique notoriety as the first African-American President.

Same should be done for Donald Trump -- the first sentence is about him being elected as US President, and the second -- him being the first US President convicted of a felony. Both sentences should go above the portrait, just like for Barak Obama. Igorlord (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:Undue Weight There are other convicted politicians such as Jeff_Fortenberry but felon is not in the leade. At the very least, it mentions he was convicted of felonies not that "is a felon".

207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Due weight. His conviction is of such magnitude that it is absolutely appropriate to put it in the opening sentence, and that holds true regardless of politic point of view. 2600:100C:B04C:767:71E1:DDE0:842B:4997 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

^political point of view, not "politic". 2600:100C:B04C:767:E199:74F8:FD25:A1C8 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose This will only blacken the name of Wikipedia and further divide the information-space. If reality has a liberal bias, as Colbert says, do you need these semantic games and pot-shots? It is easier for Trump supporters to read a few paragraphs of this borderline hit-piece, dismiss it, and return to their media ecosystem, than to deny the events and scandals of the past eight years which the article could have brought to their consideration, if it had not chased them away with these carefully chosen barbed words, which nameless editors write to swell their chests and win the acclaim of their fellows. You can compare Donald Trump with Barack Obama, Black nationalism with White nationalism, etc, etc. There is much already said here about Trump's dozens of ongoing cases and shady dealings, we can leave it here erring on the side of caution with regard to BLP policy and possible appeals 98.240.113.219 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We should probably figure out how to standardize this for politicians with criminal convictions

• Dennis Hastert, Edward M. Burke, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Rod Blagojevich mention it in the first sentence of their lede.
• Ehud Olmert, George Ryan, Sandi Jackson, and Catherine Pugh mention it in their ledes' first paragraphs, but not the first sentence
• Nicholas Sarkozy, Frank Thompson, and Anthony Weiner mention it at the end of their ledes

SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

One difference is that those politicians were imprisoned. TFD (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Wrong about that. Edward M. Burke has not faced sentencing. Last I checked, Sarkozy has yet to actually enter confinement. SecretName101 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Either have been or will be imprisoned, while Trump's convictions are unlikely to lead to imprisonment. Imprisonment of course means that part of the person's life is spent in custody. I don't know why by the way you would include someone not yet convicted of any crime. TFD (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Again, Edward M. Burke has not been sentenced. SecretName101 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He is expected to get 8-12 years when he is sentenced on June 17. Again, comparing blps of people who serve years in jail with someone unlikely to go to jail makes no sense. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment/Support for the convictions being mentioned in a different first paragraph that looks more like Nixon or Obama's than the barebones one we have now Atubofsilverware (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support The fact that there’s a debate about adding this factual information into the first sentence on an encyclopedic page of a former and ONLY president who has been found guilty of 34 felonies by a jury of his peers is gross negligence on behalf of what this site stands for. The edit history alone since the verdict was announced is abominable. The current facts are just that - facts. As of TODAY, he’s a convicted felon. It needs to be added in the first sentence. If “businessman” is there, “convicted felon” sets historical precedent. TheNarcissistNemesis (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for listing "convicted felon" before "media personality". A former (and possibly future) U.S. president having been convinced is highly notable. Comparisons with other convicted politicians are faulty; the trial and conviction of Trump have received widespread coverage and analysis, far beyond what most (if any) other people receive. Cortador (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support. This is of historical significance. A US President has never been convicted of a felony before. 58.136.154.128 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support. Not only is Donald Trump the only president chraged with a felony offense and then convicted, but listing a felony conviction in the first lines of a wikipedia page is fairly standard for most notable individuals. I fail to see why it should be pushed to another section of his article, regardless of how polorized the conviction is along political lines. Gordfather69 (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support for listing this as suggested, because it is one of the most notable things on Donald Trump, apart from the status of former president. This is a historic first for a former US president, and thus especially notable. CrazyPredictor (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

UTC) — TheNarcissistNemesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support It has now been ruled that Donald Trump obtained the presidency in 2016 by means of a criminal scheme in gross, felonious violation of campaign finance laws. Trump’s illegal presidency, which has now been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers, is the most notable thing about him, and should be presented to the reader in the first sentence of the article. The first sentence should not only say that Trump is a felon, but should explain to the reader that Trump obtained the presidency by means of this criminal scheme. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment This isn't the place to soapbox about politics. This is an encyclopedic website, not X or Facebook. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a soapbox. The point is the article needs to state that Trump was convicted of engaging in a criminal scheme to obtain the presidency. Merely saying he is a convicted felon deprives readers of the needed context. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  brother, he didn't "obtain the presidency" by paying a few hundred thousand dollars to his lawyer, to be paid forward to a washed-up 'adult actress'

  did biden top up his campaign fund with 10% for the big guy, or is this not notable ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Cope harder. Trump was convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy in violation of campaign finance laws to obtain the presidency. The first sentence of the article should reflect that. It should not simply say that Trump is a felon and a criminal; it should state that Trump became president by way of these crimes. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. His later sentencing has nothing to do with this. His conviction is a fake and extremely notable, not only for him but for the nation. WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, so we should state it clearly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support- Per above. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The label is both accurate and notable. This should—and will—be remembered. I also feel that it has a strong connection to the occupations listed in the opening sentence. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose this standard is not applied evenly to convicted felons of the Democratic party. Please reference Chakah Fattah, Corrine Brown, Anthony Weiner. An unevenly applied standard here implies bias, and diminishes the credibility of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwk5020 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are other, actually valid reasons to oppose inclusion of "felon" in the first sentence. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about the creation and deletion of articles on a given subject. That's not what is at issue here, this is a style discussion. It is appropriate to discuss the consensus on similar style discussions from other articles and communities in the project.

Nickelpro (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Cute but none of the names you mention were former presidents. This isn’t a tit for tat on dems and repubs. It’s a FACT and he is a 34x CONVICTED FORMER PRESIDENT. It must be in the first sentence. TheNarcissistNemesis (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) — TheNarcissistNemesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose I am always opposed to the use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence for people who are not exclusively known as criminals. I think it is lazy writing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - (Summoned by bot) Mention the conviction in some way in the first paragraph? Sure. First sentence? No. There is no conceivable way that something which happened today would have so much WP:WEIGHT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. WP:BLP applies here and so does the current consensus. The opening sentence of the lead should refer exclusively to what a person is most known for. Trump being a convicted felon should absolutely be mentioned in the lead but not the first sentence. On a side note, I have to add my voice to the others praising @TuffTareBear's proposed solution. It's the most logical solution. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - And as per that same consensus, the article Jeffrey Skilling still includes direct note to them being a convicted felon in the first sentence. While I agree that it should be what he is most notable for, is Trump not going to be notable for being the first President of the United States to have been found guilty of a crime? Especially noting that that crime is several felonies. It should absolutely read as such in the first sentence, even citing previous consensus. CIN I&II (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not arguing with the rest of your points, but the point of this RfC is whether or not current consensus should be changed, so “it’s the consensus” is not really an argument. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support I’m sorry but NOT including it would be simply asinine. First former president convicted ever, and yes this is big part of what he’s now known for, sources calling him that etc. etc. etc. Hard to take arguments against this seriously tbh. Volunteer Marek 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - From what I've seen on biography pages across Wikipedia, the standard isn't consistent for any sort of page in regard to convicted crimes in paragraphs. It's subjective if he is most known for everything before his conviction or being convicted as a former president. I wouldn't think it'd be appropriate to make it very prominent as the first sentence, but I would believe it would be appropriate on the first paragraph, per above. BTWiki974 (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support for the "convicted felon" statement in the initial sentence, but strong oppose for any mention of "pending appeals" in the lede for reasons I've just mentioned elsewhere, but that I'll add here as well: "Pending appeal" suggestions that have been mentioned would show obvious bias, imho. In my time here, I've never seen "pending appeal" put in the lede when someone is a convicted felon; it seems to be a novel suggestion primarily used in the case of Donald Trump. In legalistic terms, someone is convicted until an appeal/review/pardon/etc. overturns that original conviction, so unless we really want to go through each notable felon's case and find out whether they've exhausted all their appeals, we shouldn't use it. AG202 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support for convicted felon being in the first sentence. As mentioned by other users, any other person who was convicted of felonies would have it read that they are a convicted felon in their first sentence, especially when summarising his different occupations. Not including this would be ridiculous whenever considering further issues about it. This also is a major thing, he is the first President of the United States to be convicted of a crime, and a felony at that, and it should read it in the first sentence. CIN I&II (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I support an earlier mention with the full context. Trump's status as the first president convicted of crimes is important, by which I mean that sources place a lot of weight on that status, thus the conviction itself is worth mentioning. In many cases, "convicted felon" is a waste of space, since the conviction is far less notable than the crime that led to the conviction, but that doesn't apply to Trump. Here, the crimes are also important, and we would serve our readers better by mentioning both, as sources also do. He was convicted of falsifying business records in furtherance of his presidential election campaign. In that context, just "convicted felon" isn't enough, and a prominent mention of the crimes themselves is due. The current line in the last paragraph is good, but it needs to mention the context of the criminal conduct. I'd support moving the line as early as the first paragraph, just not the first sentence.
  RfCs like this are destined to be tough, and I wish the eventual closer(s) all the best in evaluating consensus. I hope they'll do their diligence in disregarding comments with no basis in—or some direct conflict with—policies and guidelines. As an example, I'm not sure what we're supposed to glean from "per above" comments in this already overcrowded mess, but it can't be seen as a quality argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is very well stated and I agree with this as an expression of the less-well-worded comment I made above. An earlier mention than the last paragraph, sure. First sentence, no. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I completely agree with this position. The fact that he is the first US president to be convicted of crimes is significant, but I don't think it fits in the first sentence. I think the most reasonable way to include it would be as a second sentence in the lede. inavda (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This is the first former USA president convicted of felony and this is the first presidential nominee from major party convicted of felony. "First" means the first in the entire USA history, not just in modern USA politics. He will be remembered for that and especially if he will be elected President again, regardless to the conviction, which is likely. Expanding this info to provide more context (as suggested by some people above) is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the previous arguments, per WP:PRECEDENT, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE, and also I feel as if people are misunderstanding the purpose of this discussion. Yes, Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact, but nobody is arguing for that fact's omission from the article. It being a fact is irrelevant when it comes to the very first sentence, which should focus on the most important details about an individual's life. Does Trump's conviction meet that criteria? We don't even know if he will get prison time yet. Otherwise, if we used this "objective fact" justification, then why is this not the case for the articles for Lindsay Lohan or Mick Jagger, for instance? I'm not really sure him being the first convicted US president weighs in favour of being in the first sentence either. Trump is a first in many cases: he's the first US president to have no prior elected office or military experience; he's the first US president to be impeached twice; etc. None of this is mentioned in the first sentence either. It should be mentioned in the lead section, absolutely, but the very first sentence? No. 87.115.222.118 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment – Because unlike Mick Jagger or Lindsay Lohan, IP editor, their felony convictions were not landmarks in the judicial history of the United States. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  You missed my point. I mentioned them because it makes the "objective fact" justification weak. Neither of their convictions are significant to their overall biographies, that's just common sense. For Trump, it's debatable whether this meets the criteria and is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. 87.115.222.118 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  While I understand what you mean that it's not technically possible to predict future notability, 1) WP:CRYSTALBALL does not cover this whatsoever despite the fact that it keeps being referenced within this RfC (he is objectively a convicted felon, and whether that will remain notable into the future is not covered by CRYSTALBALL nor, in my opinion, is it in the spirit of it), and 2) it's completely obvious to me and I think anyone else observing that Trump has guaranteed that his legacy is now and will continue to be far more tied up in his litigation and his criminal dealings than his presence as a media figure – something which we do include in the lead sentence. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This article is not about the "judicial history of the United States", it is about Donald Trump. Everyone has many firsts in their lifetimes - virtually none of those firsts are notable at all, and of those that are notable, virtually none are the sole or primary reason for the topic's notability. He is not solely or primarily notable for that, and thus it doesn't get in the first sentence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  He's also the first U.S. president not descended from slave-owners, but that's not in the lead. TFD (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not like he was convicted of a parking violation. You can’t mention that he was president without also stating in the same sentence that he was convicted of criminal acts in order to obtain the presidency. He became president purely via his crimes. Please familiarize yourself with the sources before commenting 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Saying that he became president purely via his crimes is a blatant violation of our OR and NPOV policies. Please do not go down that route. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above. Just to add to the list of politicians with "convicted felon" or a mention of their criminal convictions in the first sentence: Jack Abramoff, Edward M. Burke, Buddy Cianci, Pedro Espada Jr., Joe Ganim, Dennis Hastert, Alan Hevesi, William Jefferson, Bob Ney, Ed Pawlowski, John G. Rowland. Also, perhaps more comparable to this case are Jerry Sandusky and Harvey Weinstein, notable and very prominent in their respective fields before their criminal convictions but nonetheless both have convicted criminal in their lead sentence. Trump's conviction is historic; as others have noted, the fact that he is the first president to be convicted will still be widely known decades from now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support His status as a convicted felon is at least as important as his being a "businessman." Keep both or lose both. Johnadams11 (talk)
• Weak support if "businessman" and "media personality" are kept in the lead sentence. I would however prefer if the first sentence was more akin to e.g. Richard Nixon and only mentioned the presidency, which is singularly important to the biography of anyone who's served in that role. Other descriptors including "convicted felon" should be in a new second sentence. —siroχo 03:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with your assertion that serving as president is "singularly important" for any occupant of that office.

  @Siroxo: For instance, George Washington's work as a general is perhaps far more important to the history of America than his presidency (would there be an America without his leadership in the Revolutionary War?). Same with Ulysses S. Grant (winning the Civil War is more important than his presidency). Same with Eisenhower's time as general (helping win World War II for the allied powers is more consequential to world history than his presidency). And most certainly, William Henry Harrison's tenure as a military officer is of greater consequence than his month as president. John Quincy Adams' tenure as secretary of state is probably just as (if not more) consequential than his term as president. And Ulysses S. Grant's nine years as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty darn notable alongside his single term as president.

  Trump's time as a businessman/media personality is a defining characteristic of how he was known for decades to the public. Just like key to Reagan's biography is that he was for decades known for being an actor. SecretName101 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Like others said, keep his other titles. His "convicted felon" title would be accurate since he was convicted of a felony. This change would simply reflect the facts. TheInevitables (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support The label is both accurate and something worth mentioning. This will be always be remembered as he is first president to be convicted. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  His conviction will indeed be prominently mentioned in the lead. Just not in the first sentence. He is the first and only US president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives and will be remembered as such, but "twice-impeached" does not appear in the first sentence either. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• No per my comments in this separate RfC, along with Masem and Zaereth. Connormah (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  To expand a bit more - I think the comments about censorship are missing the mark. To me, the first sentence should establish defining characteristics of notability concisely, and adding this in makes it clunkier than it should be. Personally, to include it in the first sentence/initial mention also feels very tabloid-esque, like something I'd read in the Daily Mail or opinion column in a Sun Media publication in Canada. I don't believe you would read similar in a publication like Brittanica. This is not to say that it should be absent from the lead paragraph, just not in the first sentence/mention. And for the record, I am as far from a Trump supporter as it gets. Connormah (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes a former president of the United States being convicted of 34 felonies is a major and notable historical event and part of Trump's biography. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It belongs in the lede, but not the opening sentence. That would be a WP:RECENTISM issue, and it would also contradict consensus developed in similar cases. Other editors have already pointed out O.J. Simpson and Chris Huhne. I'd also like to point out this RFC about David Duke, which resulted in "convicted felon" being removed from the opening sentence. I know everyone is excited about the conviction, but let's remember Wikipedia is not news. Let's allow time to pass, and, if being a convicted felon turns out to be one of the central reasons for his notability (as determined by the WP:WEIGHT of RS), then we can revisit this question at a later date. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  You may want to fix that piped link Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the IP. "Convicted felon" or simply "felon" should only be considered to be in the first sentence of a biographical article when the individual is primarily known for their felony conviction or criminal activity and when the weight of reliable source coverage is reflective of that, and even under these parameters, I think caution should be taken with adding such a descriptor, and in the case of Trump, neither of these parameters are present anyway. Trump is primarily known for this political activity and to a lesser degree his media and business career, not his felony convictions. Furthermore, adding "convicted felon" is almost certainly recentism. Now, of course, his felony convictions should be mentioned in the lead section, as it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose to avoid recency bias and undue weight. Ulysses S. Grant was the first US president to be arrested, but that doesn't even appear in his article. So even if Trump is the first to be convicted of felonies, putting it in the very first sentence of the article is excessive. Let it be in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also add that "convicted felon" is empty and meaningless all by itself. Many people are convicted of many things. Any mention of the felony should also include a short description of what he was convicted of. Like it or not, one man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter, which is why a conviction of a crime does not by itself mean anything. And because such a description will fall afoul of WP:UNDUE if placed in the very first sentence, it should be mentioned later in the lead - probably alongside his two impeachments by the US House, which is also a first. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  In the case of Ulysses S. Grant there is both an entire other article concerning his arrests (Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant), as well as disputed historicity of them. Furthermore, Donald Trump is the first U.S. president to be arrested after or during their presidency as well as the first president to be convicted of a crime after or during their presidency. This kind of significant landmark is not as minor as a president who was arrested for speeding years before ever holding political power, this is an active candidate and former President of the United States being convicted for a crime. In another article from a non-US President who was convicted and it mentions in the first sentence there is the South Korean president Park Geun-hye, of which it directly mentions her corruption charge in the first sentence. Also I would like to specifically cite that your mention of "one man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter, which is why a conviction of a crime does not by itself mean anything" is not encyclopaedic, since it is kind of like stating that "one man's conspiracy is another man's truth so Wikipedia shouldn't focus on conspiracies." Just because something is controversial does not mean that it is not important, see WP:CONTROVERSY. CIN I&II (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Dennis Hastert, James Traficant, Kwame Kilpatrick, Edward M. Burke, and I'm sure others who have similar language in their ledes. GSK (talk • edits) 04:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose. Undue; being a convicted felon does not significantly contribute to Trump's notability. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I highly disagree with this notion, since his conviction in this is a landmark in not just United States history, but in judicial history within the United States. As cited in many other issues it's very common to include convicted felon within the first section on an article, and in this instance it is not just a minor note, but it is a landmark major decision in all of United States history. CIN I&II (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  As the ONLY former president to be convicted of thirty four felonies, it sure does. First sentence necessary. TheNarcissistNemesis (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) — TheNarcissistNemesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose Does not belong in the lede sentence but clearly belongs in the lede in discussing his current legal situation. Remember that this is not the most significant charges against him. We are not required to stuff the lede sentence with everything a person is notable for (which for Trump is a huge list at this point), and position his conviction which just happened today over anything else is undue weight from a temporal standpoint. Over time that might change, particularly if these other charges drop more convictions. --Masem (t) 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A lot of the oppose logic being used here is very US-centric. He might be notable as a media personality and businessman in the US, but around the world he is far more notable as a convicted felon. So unless all but politician/former president is being removed, convicted felon must be added. <Karlww (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  "US-centric" I would argue the same is true of much of the support arguments. Nicolas Sarkozy is the first French president to be convicted, that does not warrant it being mentioned in the first sentence however. 148.252.147.25 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Where in the world is Trump more notable as a convicted felon? That’s quite a claim, to put it lightly. 2A00:20:6042:9A8F:688E:CC4:6E25:BDA2 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. He's not mostly notable as a felon, and many similar examples (e.g. Martha Stewart, who similarly was known as a television personality and actually served time) do not use this framing. If we use it here, please update her article as well. Mario777Zelda (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  To add to this opposition I would like to point people to the discussion surrounding labeling Martha Stewart as a "convicted felon" Talk:Martha Stewart#Felon TuqueAlHuriya (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Either in first sentence or second sentence (and certainly the first paragraph). First president, current or former, to ever be (criminally) convicted is pretty notable. I like how someone above compared to how Obama's article mentions that he's the first African American president. Enter Movie (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Difference is Obama was the first African American president from the moment if his inauguration. Trump isn't even a sitting president anymore. One is a race, the other is circumstantial. It's silly to compare the two in such a manner. 148.252.146.66 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I was fairly neutral on it but reading through much of this discussion many opposing point out that it should be in the lede, but not the first sentence, ignoring that the lede as it stands is only one sentence long. It makes much more sense to add it to the opening sentence instead of adding a second there, so support. Hasaan5 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support With A Condition I endorse the inclusion of the descriptor in the lead; however, it is prudent to delay its addition until after his sentencing, as he is not technically a felon until that point. Trump and his enterprises are significant for their involvement in criminal activities and can be characterized as criminal enterprises. Acknowledging this reality aligns with a straightforward and accurate portrayal of the situation. adding such to the lead is par for the course here on Wikipedia when such notable people are convicted on such notable crimes. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in first sentence. "It's notable because he's the first, so let's include it in a way that doesn't even mention he's the first" is nonsensical. But I'd support including it in the first paragraph (not "convicted felon", but "He is the first American president to be convicted of a felony", so the important point is made explicitly and not implicitly). edit: also endorse everything Firefangledfeathers and Chaotic Enby said DFlhb (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) edited 18:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Adding "Convicted felony" in the first sentence would be considered libelous and unfair. That's not good for Wikipedia. wɔːr (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless on one's opinion on whether or not this inclusion meets the notability threshold, it is wildly ridiculous to assert that mention of a widely-publicized criminal conviction in this context constitutes libel when it is also thoroughly covered in other places on Wikipedia. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 07:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It in no way is libellous to state that a person who has been convicted on several felony counts is a convicted felon. I don't see how this is "not good for Wikipedia" and "libelous [sic]" to state that a convicted felon is a convicted felon. CIN I&II (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. No one's article should ever say "convicted felon" in the first sentence. No one is notable for committing a felony, they are notable for having committed a specific crime. If it's not why they're notable it shouldn't be in the lead. Sure, it's a first, but there are 1000 technical firsts for every president and we don't put them in the lead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  As stated by @GSK:, the articles of Dennis Hastert, James Traficant, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Edward M. Burke all state that they are convicted felons in the first line or state their crime in the lead. Furthermore, while none of those officials are the first ever representatives or respective other political offices' first officeholders to be convicted of a crime, Donald Trump is the first ever President of the United States to be convicted of a felony or other crime after or during office. CIN I&II (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. The conviction itself is notable, not just the fact that Trump has committed crimes. Cortador (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts and he is notorious for being the first American president which this has happened to. There is an abundance of WP:RS reflecting this and it is end result of high profile trial which recieved pleny of world-wide attention. It would therefore be WP:DUE to cover this in the lede, with a preference for it being in the first sentence given how historic this is. To not cover it would be censorship, which we should avoird per WP:NOTCENSORED. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a discussion about the first sentence of the lead. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't make sense in the context of this RFC. Nemov (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as it's disproportionate WP:WEIGHT and a case of WP:RECENTISM. It's not the primary thing he's known for (not even close, in fact), so doesn't have a place in the literal first sentence. There's no doubt it should be mentioned elsewhere in the lead, however. — Czello ^(music) 08:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. A recent (MOS??) discussion covered this very point, I agreed there with those that argued that No one's article should ever say "convicted felon" in the first sentence …they are notable for having committed a specific crime, as PARAKANYAA says above (unless of course they are 'career criminals whose crimes are too numerous to specify). Describing someone as a 'felon' (or 'sex offender' or other generic terms) is very uninformative, you might as well say 'bad person', if you don't record the crime they have been convicted for. If the verdict is worth mentioning, then the crime is worth specifying. I also agree with editors who argue here that in this instancethe criminal conviction is due for the lead, but … it is not due for the first sentence … Trump is not notable for being a convicted felon.. Second para at the earliest, covering the nature of the charges, including any first ex-President to have been convicted claims. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) … addendum btw, as someone else points out, much of the world (inc the UK) has no idea what a 'felon' is, apart from knowing that it is somehow vaguely connected to crime. The felony/misdemeanour distinction and the terminology are US-centric and possibly even US-specific. The whole world can understand specified charges covering specified crimes, but editors favouring 'felon' are not seeking to impart info to a global readership, simply to attach a label the import of which will only ever be understood by a 'local' audience. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• It's been twelve hours. Why hasn't this RfC been closed in favor of the request? There is a very clear course of action that needs to be taken. By delaying, a message is being sent here that incontrovertible facts do not matter. Every minute of inactivity screams that disingenuous fauxtests of "undue weight" and "non-neutrality" matter much more than being an actual encyclopedia. Admins, stop treating this like a plebiscite and do the right thing already.66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Chill. RfCs can take time, especially on extremely prominent and contentious articles such as this one. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. — Czello ^(music) 09:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, no rush here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Donald John Trump is the first American President in history to be convicted of a felony. What 👏 is 👏 the 👏 controversy 👏 here? 66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The debate isn't whether it should be mentioned, but where. This is one of the most significant articles on the site, and the very first line of it is the most prominent. We spend a long time formulating consensus on this article, and this shouldn't be an exception. There's no rush. — Czello ^(music) 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  And how is his conviction not a titanic milestone? How could anyone but a partisan hack want to bury this lede? 66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC is not to decide if the conviction is noteworthy or important, but instead its descriptive utility in the first sentence of a biography on Donald Trump.

  I understand that a lot of people have a passionate reaction this recent news, but throwing names only adds more fire and noise to these sprawling discussions. WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 12:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Delaying acknowledgment of lede-worthy notability is denying notability here. It is, as other editors have noted, asinine. The thumb-twiddling is honestly embarrassing. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. We don't close this quickly on something so monumental unless it's a case of WP:SNOW, which it isn't. — Czello ^(music) 10:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:now if it's misinformation. Ommiting the convictions over fraud when there is mention of Trump being a "business man" sounds like misinformation to me. We don't refer to the people who ran Enron as "business men" after they're convicted of fraud Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  We're not omitting it. It's already in the lead. It's not misinformation to refer to him as a business man. — Czello ^(music) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• oppose This (no matter how many charges) in truth one conviction. Whilst he may have committed other felonies, this is his only conviction for them. So I am unsure if this really counts as a defining characteristic, at least according to our polices, and the law. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that he's been convicted at all is historic. TarnishedPath^talk 09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, so we could say something like "the first former president to be convicted of felonies" (though they may yet be overturned on appeal), but it is still not a defining characteristic of his whole life (for a start, he is still alive). This is not over till the highest court in the land says it is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why we couldn't say something along the lines of "the first former president to be convicted of felonies". It still conveys that he's a convicted felon and adds material for why that fact is of note. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Trump is the first ever President of the United States to be convicted of a crime, as well despite there being only one conviction, as said by @GSK:, the articles of Dennis Hastert, James Traficant, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Edward M. Burke all also state they are convicted of a crime, and they were also not the first in their office to be convicted. CIN I&II (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have stated my reason, give me the courtesy of not trying to change my mind with wp:otherstuff arguments, two wrongs do not make a right. This RFFC is too long to try and hunt down replies. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF here, I'm citing other related United States political figures in which it mentions their felon status in the lead. I'm not trying some "two wrongs make a right" situation here, I am citing other articles which use the same formatting as is proposed on this article. CIN I&II (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ignore all rules. I could give policy/guideline etc arguments, but others have already done this extensively. Therefore, I will give a more teleological comment. In my opinion, there should be no hurry to attach the label of "convicted felon" in the lede of any article, until the appeal process is finished. Simply because of a combination of recency, neutrality, and the spirit of biography of living people. But in this particular case: it will cause more material damage to the public opinion of the encyclopedia's reliability, if this gets overturned. This is something that was built through much effort. And for what? Nothing. No information is lost from excluding- at this time contentious, even though objectively true (something noone is denying) statement that Trump is a convicted felon- from the first sentence of the lede. I regret that I have to make a comment like this, instead of having some other discussion on whether the label "convicted felon" should be included in the ledes of BLPs until the appeal process is exhausted. However, Wikipedia is not completely isolated from the external world. We should try to not bite off more than we can chew. At the end of the day, NOTNEWS. Dege31 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do want to reply to all elements of this so I just want to specifically comment on this fully that:

  1. While I do know and understand that it may be seen as damaging to the reliability, but as you stated it is objectively true currently. Furthermore while I understand where you are coming from in regards to the appeals process, Trump has both not yet officially filed an appeal (though this most likely will change) and Wikipedia will have made sure to host the most correct data at the times it was written.
  2. I will state that while I do understand the comment that "something no one is denying" in regards to the objectively true nature of the addition, I would both caution it as a slippery slope to then intentionally not include objectively true information due to controversy around it (WP:CONTROVERSY), and I would state that while you most assuredly have not stated it to be false, I have seen at least one user in this RfC attempt to claim that it would be libellous to state that he was convicted.
  3. I think that, as per previous articles (see Dennis Hastert, James Traficant, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Edward M. Burke as commented earlier by @GSK:) it should be put in the lead that he has been convicted. As stated by @TarnishedPath:, the fact that Donald Trump has been convicted at all is most assuredly historic, and I think that such a piece should be especially stated in the lead.

  Overall, while I understand your critique on this, I do not think that it has the sound finally on this, since I think that the WP:IGNORE doesn't apply here, noting that this is not a case in which it degrades the article, and it includes factual information within the article. CIN I&II (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Trump has not yet officially filed an appeal, that's correct, and it's also true that he most likely will make an appeal, as you said. Wikipedia is not 24/7 live reporting, so there's no pressure to immediately make a change in this regard one way or the other.

  It is not a slippery slope, because no information is being excluded. What's being discussed is a certain characterisation of information, and specifically in the first sentence of the lead. This information is already covered in the 6th paragraph of the lead.

  Sure, but the fact that he has been convicted is already in the lead.

  IAR applies because it will cause material damage to the public opinion of the encyclopedia's reliability, if this gets overturned in the near future- for no good reason. It does not help maintain or improve Wikipedia. This is a mentality of having to add a keyword to the lead the moment it can be verifiably added, which is not always wise. Dege31 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I entirely disagree with your notion that presenting correct information at any present time would damage the credibility of Wikipedia. Also the direct and easily accessible information is being not included. It's trying to avoid controversy by trying to then avoid stating any fact in the beginning. Also I agree that it is not immediately pressured, but I also think that as it is true at the moment it should be included. It would be one thing if this was an obscure politician, but it is another thing that this is presently being looked at by millions, thus giving it a level of higher gravitas on what information goes where. Also in my citations on the four articles, I am stating that all four use that the individual was convicted of a crime in the lead sentence, not just in the lead. CIN I&II (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am also saying that there is a higher gravitas, and it's why I disagree with your counter-notion in this context. Additionally, three of the four examples elaborate in the same sentence what happened. Only James Traficant leaves it for the second paragraph. In any case, no facts would be avoided by not describing James Traficant as a convicted felon in the first sentence. If this was avoiding facts, the first sentence of a lead would need to use every descriptor of a certain person, but this is unnecessary. I don't think we should be using that description in the first sentence, and I'm pointing out the importance in avoiding it here. Feel free to not reply, if you think we're reaching a point of going in circles! I don't want to bludgeon. Dege31 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support mention in lede, but not in first sentence. Lede should mention conviction, not necessarily say use 'convicted felon' as a descriptor. Feoffer (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, I see a lot of insisting that being a felon is, or will not be the primary thing Trump is known for. I don’t think this is true.
• Oppose, at this time. Trump being the first American president to be a convicted felon is not yet his primary cause of notoriety, and doesn't belong in the first sentence but elsewhere in the lede. Putting it in the first sentence may be appropriate at a later date, but not now. It does not yet seem like a neutral frame. (And I dislike Trump as much as anybody.) Eivind Eklund, 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump is the first former president to be charged with a felony (and this is only the first of the many indictments he is facing) and he will be the first felon to be a major party’s presidential nominee this election year. This is undoubtedly one of the most significant events in American politics, and if we want to follow the 10yearrule, we ought to include it in the first sentence. Slamforeman (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Donald Trump is now convicted felon. It is unprecedented for USA history, however, many other democratic countries already have that in they history. To not put words "convicted felon" in first sentence is, in my opinion, open attempt of hiding this important information from public view. A huge portion of people in USA are not following news and not interested in politics. They might not know this important information which might change they opinion about how they will vote. So, basically, hiding words "convicted felon" down the article is bold and open attempt to hide the truth and change the outcome of future elections in USA. People should know truth. Truth is very important. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This comment does not assume good faith. I doubt anyone opposing is doing so to suppress the truth (no one is proposing it isn't mentioned in the lead at all); the arguments are mostly about WP:WEIGHT. — Czello ^(music) 11:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but after russian wikipedia from 2006 up to 2022 have admin that was agent of russian military intelligence and run Sock puppet account it is common for many people NOT assume good faith. Until 2022 russian wikipedia was run as loudspeaker of Kremlin propaganda. Now banned admins was filling it with lies and propaganda as well as doxing users (for which some admin were later receive global ban). So in this very important topic, after i learn what debacle and charade was not just users, but admins in ru-wikipedia, i think i have the right to not automatically assume good faith on very important topics like this. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently enough people do propose not mentioning it in the lede at all, as attempts to place the information early in the article without altering the first sentence also do not stick. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, it's already in the lead in the final paragraph. Bypassing this conversation to insert it in the second sentence simply isn't helpful. — Czello ^(music) 08:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Some poor sod will, have to close this, that means reading this, can we just make our arguments, and not try to argue with anyone else's, as a courtesy to the closer? Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: "convicted felon" does not seem the appropriate phrase. Other articles where people have been found guilty of crime have had what crime they have been convicted of: i.e. Harvey Weinstein's lead says that he is "an American former film producer and convicted sex offender". If it is to be included it should reflect the crime he is convicted of rather than "convicted felon" which does not particularise any crime. Mariawest1965 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Not only is the subject a felon, but he is the first US president to be convicted of a crime, and a first convicted felon to be a nominee of a major party. It is not WP:UNDUE to mention such a historic and unprecedented fact. Actually, in my estimation, not mentioning it would be close to lying by omission, especially since many readers often simply skim read first few sentances of the lede. Melmann 11:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

not mentioning it would be close to lying by omission, especially since many readers often simply skim read first few sentances of the lede It's not lying by omission as no one's arguing it shouldn't be in the lead at all, just not in the lead sentence. I also don't think we can account nor compensate for the reading habits of visitors. — Czello ^(music) 11:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We can easily compensate for the reading habits of visitors by adding crucially important information in first sentence - just like was done with articles about convicted felons Paul Manafort or Scott Ritter. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence to suggest that people aren't going to read past the literal first sentence, and I suppose my point is that we shouldn't be trying to compensate. — Czello ^(music) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet, many tools, like Google knowledge panels, literally only extract the first sentence or two. If I Google Donald Trump right now, the info panel only shows the first three sentences. I think that we have an obligation to all our readers, even those who read our articles via Google info panels or Alexa definitions, to leave them as informed as possible. Yes, in an ideal world, all our readers would read the whole article, and then check the sources as well, but that's just not a realistic expectation. The reality is that 100s of millions of readers will have the first few sentences of this article displayed to them (even if they don't always read them), and failing to include such a highly salient fact that the subject is a felon is doing them a disservice. Melmann 21:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not a valid reason to violate other policies. In fact, it's not a valid reason to do anything whatsoever. Your entire opinion is based on the fact that you think readers on google which isn't even WP controlled should be informed of this - and that makes it even worse. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we right great wrongs; I'm suggesting we make decisions in the interest of our readers by packing the first few sentences with the most salient and most relevant information. Also, everyone who consumes our content is a Wikipedia reader, and is worthy of considering, regardless of the exact medium or format. Melmann 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have always opposed trying to accommodate readers who stop reading at the end of the lead. Trying to accommodate readers who stop reading at the end of the first sentence is beyond comical. just like was done And please see my slam dunk debunking of cherry-picked precedent arguments here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I just read the short description. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Whoa there, that's a whole 9 words, why not open with "Trump is felon,..." Crossroads ^-talk- 00:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently people are arguing that it shouldn't be in the lede, because attempts to add a second sentence to the first paragraph have been reverted. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the lead. The entire last paragraph is dedicated to it. Adding it earlier on is bypassing this current discussion. — Czello ^(music) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Oppose. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says we should cover "The main reason the person is notable", which we do - he was notable as a businessman and media personality for several years, he is now notable as a politician who was once the president and is trying to be the president again. "Convicted felon", as funny as it would be to have in the opening sentence, is not something he is notable for. Other politicians with "convicted felon" that've been mentioned above had nowhere near the high profile of Trump and often became much more notable because of their convictions. With Trump? This isn't the case. It's not that we're censoring it or whatever, as we deal with his litany of legal troubles in two of the five paragraphs of the lede. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that most of his notability is derived from his becoming a US President. However, he was convicted of those 34 felonies of falsifying New York business records in order to achieve said notability. Specifically, from the People of New York vs. Donald Trump indictment: “The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”. In other words, Trump became a felon in order to become President. I would be hard-pressed to find a reputable source that denies the conviction and its link to Trumpʼs 2016 presidential campaign. If a bank robber donated their ill-gotten gains in order to gain notoriety as a philanthropist, it would be dishonest to highlight their philanthropy before what made them wealthy in the first place. Baltakatei 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  All well and good, but that still would not make him being notable for having been a felon. He may have committed these crimes in order to aid his own chances, or he may have just committed these crimes for another reason - it just doesn't change the fact he is primarily notable as a president, nowhere near as much as a felon. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, though I would back a wait if necessary. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE does say that we should be covering the main reason why the subject of an article is notable, but I think that Ser!'s arguments can actually support the case. The 34 felony convictions are now one of the main reasons why Mr. Trump is notable. Alternatively, I would support the inclusion of his felony conviction in a separate sentence in the first paragraph, if consensus seems to support its inclusion early in the lead but not specifically in the first sentence. Given that Mr. Trump is probably one of the most complex figures to ever come into fame, it is difficult to write a single sentence which covers everything he is known for in Wikipedia's preferred style, but given the weight of the charges, and how extensively world media covered it (per WP:DUE), this is a piece of information which deserves to be elevated to one of the primary points about Mr. Trump. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm usually wary of responding to other's comments on RfCs for fear of WP:BLUDGEONING, but as my name's been mentioned, I just want to pitch in that I disagree on this one. The felony convictions are notable, not a shadow of a doubt, but I don't think they are a reason Trump himself is notable. He was already probably the most notable person on the planet, so the felony thing is just another brick in (if you'll excuse the inapt metaphor) the wall. For me it all circles back to "what he's done is notable, but hasn't made him notable", hence my disagreement on the lede. I fully agree with your proposed alternative of including it in a sentence in the first paragraph, because undoubtedly being the first president to be convicted is a very notable thing - just not as a defining role of what makes him notable in the lede. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Simply because being a former president who is also a convicted felon is extremely noteworthy. 72.219.85.206 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• comment* many seem to be missing the point that Trump became president by means of this criminal scheme. This is not some unrelated matter to his presidency. This is how he became president. Hence in mentioning his presidency, we ought to say that he became president as a result of these crimes he was later convicted for. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Soft Support for inclusion in first sentence. I believe his felon status is relevant enough to be included in the first sentence, however I acknowledge that could just be recency bias at play. Strong Support for inclusion in the lede, for what should be obvious reasons. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact that he is the first US president to get convicted of a crime deserves its own sentence in the introduction. Boers1 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Boers1 Did you mean "support?" Firestar464 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, I would put it in a separate sentence and not in the first sentence. Boers1 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would like to take this opportunity to criticise the concept of criminality being included in the introduction of a particular person, regardless of who it is about. I do not know whether there is a policy on this topic on WP, someone please let me know if there is.

1. It is an American-centric concept. The English-language terms "felon" and "felony" are virtually unused outside the United States, and it both confuses foreign readers and establishes an overtly American writing style that is completely non-encyclopaedic.
2. It places undue authority on US courts as the undisputed source for this status. Again, an American-centric approach as foreign courts are almost never used for a person's criminal status, and in fact most editors would be openly against political dissidents in authoritarian countries being labelled as "felons", criminals, spies, etc.
3. It violates NPOV and directly advertises a person's criminality as an important point, despite criminality being universally considered a negative thing.
4. In relation to the previous two points, it could be potentially libellous. If the conviction is issued by a court of debatable reliability, and especially if it is overturned later, it could be seen as an attempt to defame the person.
5. It isn't relevant and again pushes the American-centric narrative that criminality is the most important information about someone. If a person is solely known for an action that is also crime, the that action should be presented without reference to judicial conviction. Garirry (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• The fact this is even considered shows the state of this site. --FMSky (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the label "convicted felon" per Wikipedia:Crime_labels#Suggested_alternate_construction_to_avoid_labeling. Suggest instead to add the first sentence of the last paragraph as a second sentence to the first paragraph:

  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. In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

  I'm not convinced that we should go into the details ("related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, making Trump the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime") in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I see no problem with your suggestion and agree that the lede is not the place to go into the specifics regarding the crimes being related to hush money payments to Stormy. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the last paragraph of the lead has been shortened considerably, I suggest to make it the second paragraph:

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.

In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, making Trump the only former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. He has been indicted in three other jurisdictions on 54 other felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In separate civil proceedings in New York state court, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023 and for financial fraud in 2024.

Trump received a Bachelor of Science in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. His father named him president of his real estate business ...

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I see a major issue with highlighting criminal cases and not other things he's far more notable for, such as his presidency. Cessaune [talk] 09:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We'd still be leading with former president in the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 with no context around it is not comparable to an entire paragraph that focuses on things that are nowhere near the primary cause of his notability, felonies notwithstanding. He's primarily notable for being the 45th POTUS. In my mind it is not due at all to focus on his civil and criminal cases; the paragraph is fine where it is IMO. Cessaune [talk] 10:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What kind of context does served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 need? We currently follow that up with Trump's life in chronological order. Felony convictions on 34 charges seem a bit more notable than his BS in economics, Ivy League nothwithstanding, or his Dad naming him president of Dad's company. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

1) the felony charges aren't the only thing you're proposing to move up and 2) his presidency is far more notable than all of these. Cessaune [talk] 10:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes a stellar last paragraph. No real argument beyond what Cessaune said, just gut feel. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can live with its present position, but former president AND presumptive GOP candidate for president AND convicted felon - there's a unique position of notability if I ever saw one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This would be atypical, as far as I know all our BLP leads are either chronological or have a "lead within the lead" (= adding one sentence to the first paragraph). Simply moving the last paragraph after the first feels stilted (I know that's subjective). Britannica's lede pulls it off very well, but I doubt we can achieve that through "design [/writing] by committee". If we could somehow get permission from Britannica to steal their lead, I'd vote to strongly support that. A more realistic proposal might be Iamreallygoodatcheckers's, 4-5 sentences in the first paragraph that cover this conviction, the impeachment, and that briefly sum up his presidency. DFlhb (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Atypical for WP leads — maybe so, but for the subject of this page it's par for the course. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for inclusion in the opening paragraph but neutral on whether to extend the existing sentence or to add a second one. Also neutral on whether to say "convicted felon" or something like "convicted of a felony". This clearly an absolutely key defining fact on a par with the others already included in the first paragraph. This is something that will still be regarded as a key fact about him in a hundred years time. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the first sentence, but support for the first paragraph. There are many public figures with criminal convictions, but we only mention it in the opening sentence if that outweighs the notability of what they were famous for. From an encyclopedic standpoint, Trump is most notable for being president of USA. In a distant second are his notability as a real estate owner, media personality, and criminal. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support; the fact he is the first, and only, American president to be guilty of felony crimes – and that these felony crimes helped him become president – is as noteworthy as his pre-presidential career. Sceptre (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think we need to mention his conviction in the lede, but I don't think "convicted felon" is ever appropriate for a first sentence. Even for people primarily known for committing crimes, there is almost always a better descriptor (for example you could specify the crime with "fraudster," "murderer," etc.). "Convicted felon" is vague and does not give specificity that "fraudster" would (but to be clear, not advocating adding "fraudster" here, just an example). Especially on BLPs, I think we should eschew "convicted felon" in the first sentence and either use a more specific descriptor in the first sentence or just mention convictions later in the lede. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree exactly; if I were the boss, the MOS would strongly discourage "convicted felon" just as you say. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support as the first US President to be criminally convicted, especially as Trump's legal history is so extensive that we currently have an indictments against Donald Trump article. Alternatively, this criminal conviction could be mentioned in a second sentence of the first paragraph to match Andrew Johnson's article finishing its opening paragraph with Johnson's unique status as the first president to be impeached. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support for updating the first sentence, with conditions—I think "convicted felon" is too vague and would prefer something like "convicted fraudster." Even if we don't update the first sentence, we should absolutely include a note about the conviction prominently in the lede, as per the examples highlighted by Donald Guy. The arguments about appeals, are, I think, immaterial at this time—whether or not the case gets overturned in the future (which we can't know, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc.), the notable fact is that the former President was convicted of a crime. Fiendpie (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support including it in the opening sentence or at the very least the second sentence of the lede. The conviction isn't what makes Trump notable, but the conviction itself is notable (historic actually). It needs to be front and center in some way. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been on Wikipedia too long because the first thing I thought of when Trump was convicted is that someone will be opening up a RFC on this very topic. Many of the support votes can be discounted since there's really no policy basis for something that happened yesterday to be notable enough to justify inclusion into the lead sentence. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE we should not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Also, MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says the first sentence should include the main reason the person is notable. Trump is notable for many things, but being a convicted felon is not the most notable thing about him. To argue otherwise ignores WP:WEIGHT. This RFC should be closed just based on simple to understand policy. There's no logical policy argument to justify putting something that happened yesterday to a highly notable person, a former US president, in the lead sentence. Adding "strong" to a comment doesn't erase policy. Nemov (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Y Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  YY ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed! Boers1 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Putting it in the first sentence would mean that it is one of the most important things he is known for, and that isn't the case with Trump. --Minilammas (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: First sentence is for what makes the subject notable. Trump is notable for being the POTUS, among other things and not for being a felon. This might change later on, but for now, this change shouldn't be made. I do support a mention somewhere in the lead, and it currently seems fine as is. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. We've had many people become President. Yes, it is notable for an individual to become President. But you want to know what is even more notable than that? To be the FIRST President in the entire history American to be a "convicted felon" who was convicted for felony "election interference" in trying to rig the 2016 election-- for which he was found guilty for on ALL counts. EmmaRoydes (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  He was not convicted for election interference or trying to rig the election. He was convicted of "falsification of business records in the first degree". It is notable that he is a convicted felon, but it is not what he is known for and that is what needs to go in the first sentence. Boers1 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support the inclusion in the first sentence that Trump is both "a convicted felon" and "the first President to be convicted of multiple felony counts" (30+ to be exact).

Just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.

This should be included in the paragraph IMMEDIATELY. And if the RFC finds otherwise, then be moved. It should not be the other way around as Trump no longer enjoys his presumption of innocence, and any harm to his reputation by the facts presented are his fault and not our's for simply reporting it.

(FACT) Trump is a convicted felon.

(FACT) Trump is the first President to be convicted of crimes.

(FACT) Given the felony status of Trump's conviction, and he was unananimously convicted by a jury of his peers for trying to use a falsification-documents & campaign finance 'criminal' scheme to conceal hushmoney payments to a 'porn-star' to withhold vital information to the American public with the intent to interfere (and basically rig) an President election as it was Trump's fear that his affair with a 'porn-star' would ruin his reputuation to the degree that he would lose his election. To be clear, that is what he was accused of. And the jury made it clear on ALL COUNTS that they bought into this allegtion and convicted him quickly on this serious crime alleged.

Let's do our job people, and not withhold information from readers (especially the low-information ones) that may infer that our timidness here reflects that there is somehow something wrong about Trump's very fair verdict.

This should be a no-braining and facts are facts. The RFC here is being weaponized simply to WP:CENSOR this factual information to protect a convicted felon. If this information is embarassing and hurtful to the subject, then that's on him. We are simply reporting on it. We are not editorializing, nor are we saying "he is corrupt" or "a bad person". There are actually many famous convicted felons who have grown from their experience, and are highly respected. So it not our job to play the PR for Trump and his campaign.

Ironically Trump was convicted on ALL COUNTS for using dishonest criminal schemes to withhold vital information from the public because it might hurt his election chances. He was convicted for felony election interference, which was the central accusation here by a unanimous decision by a jury of his peers.

In America, trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of democracy, which must be respected. More importantly, Trump no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence following his verdict.

It is embarassing and appaling that wikipedia is finding itself basically enabling a convicted felon into gaslighting the public by WP:CENSORing this page.

Here's the thing: compared to other pages involving powerful men like Harvey Weinstein we have no problem including in the first paragraph that they are convicted felon if that is the facts here.

Again, it is WP:NOTABLE enough that Obama was the first black president that we report it front and center.

That Trump "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" could, to play devil's advocate, be argued (on some of similar logic here offered by naysayers here), that we NOT include any of those labels in the first sentence given he was unexceptional in any of those fields, and basically a failure on all fronts given his many bankrupcies, the loss of the President election in 2020 (which was fair and square) and his cancellation of his show. Yet, it would be absurd NOT to mention this.

Again, just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.

EmmaRoydes (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

But Obama's article doesn't mention in the first sentence that he was the first black President. --Minilammas (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Donald Guy, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fiendpie, et al. I agree that if it's worth mentioning, it's worth specifying, so if we're going to include something in the first sentence, "convicted fraudster" is better than "convicted felon." I'm not sure whether it belongs in the first sentence as of now, but I think it's probably worth mentioning in the second sentence. It shouldn't stand alone in the same way as Donald Guy's examples, at least not yet. So the first paragraph might look something like:

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

And perhaps later, it would be more justified to place "convicted fraudster" after "businessman." But I'm not sure that's warranted yet. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I like this, and it could be a viable starting point for a first paragraph. I'd also suggest a few other distinctions, such as first to be impeached twice, first to be elected without any prior political or military position, or the oldest president before the record was broken by his immediate successor. The details would need to be worked out later, presumably after several exhausting debates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this is the best possible starting point for a revised article, covering the significant points while in keeping with Wikipedia policy. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the one. When this RfC inevitably ends in "no consensus", start a new one with this as the specific proposal. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "convicted felon" in opening sentence. This isn't even arguable. Please provide one article where we say convicted felon in the opening sentence. Neither Elizabeth Holmes, Jordan Belfort, nor Sam Bankman-Fried say convicted felon in the opening sentence or even in the lead. This discussion should be closed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidLark1n (talk • contribs)

• That's easy. Dennis Hastert. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per IP, Di, Trovatore, Meters, and others. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose It's clear that this is something that is somewhat inconsistent in its applications, but as many other users here have mentioned, generally it is included in the first sentence if the fact that the person is a convict is one of the most notable reasons they are famous. I am sure in 20-30 years the fact Trump was the first US president ever convicted of a felony, but just a day after it happened seems very rushed. It should absolutely be included in the lede, maybe even a 2nd sentence, but right now is just rushing to be able to say it for the sake of being able to say it. Jelephant (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Even besides all the points already mentioned, 34 is uhh... quite a few. IdfbAn (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose it's just not what he's notable for to the point that it should be in the opening sentence. Zanahary (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support _pbp 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support I've read through the oppose side and it seems to be mostly based on Precedent, Crystal Ball, and Notoriety. I think all three are actually satisfied though. The precedent we do have for leaders, especially American ones supports putting it in the first sentence. It exists for example in Dennis Hastert's page. I think Crystal Ball is satisfied for the same reason Notoriety is satisfied. It is already international news. Donald Trump is the first American President to be convicted of a felony. I can support different wording, but this is definitely something we should be mentioning. As to whether it is something he is notorious for, we have had years of investigations and there are multiple court trials going on right now. All of this is also international news. And this trial specifically looked at charges of fraud in relation to his election campaign in 2020. Not mentioning this would be like calling any convicted white collar criminal a businessman without further clarification.Outcast95 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree the middle ground to this is an expanded first paragraph, but this would require some working out. It would need to be at least 4-5 comprehensive sentences about Trump, not just the existing sentence plus "In May 2024, he was convicted of a crime" as has been suggested by some. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. Failing to report that he is the first and only US president convicted of a felony in the lede lede sentence is like failing to report that John F. Kennedy was assassinated in the lede lede aentence to that article. It a fact so remarkable, important, and basic as to defy any possible explanation for omission short of a desire to deny reality. Msnicki (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Msnicki: I don't see anybody saying we shouldn't report this in the lead. Please read the section heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: At the moment, it's not anywhere in the lede paragraph, never mind the first sentence. But to your point, I've clarified my comment to say the mention should go in the first sentence. It's that important. Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Msnicki: The lead section isn't just the first sentence or paragraph. It's everything above the table of contents, or, if you're using the Vector 22 layout, above "Personal life". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose It should obviously be mentioned in the lead, but putting it in the first sentence is UNDUE. We need to give it more time and see if it becomes one of the defining aspects of Trump's life. The push to immediately give it this much prominence is clear recentism. I could potentially support including it in the second or third sentence instead. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you want it in the first paragraph it would logically go at the end. Right now that paragraph is chronologically sorted. We also do not have to add the exact proposed words to the first sentence. I can read something like, "... And is the first US president to be convicted of a felony." To say this is just Recentism is unwarranted in my opinion though. If nothing else this will be studied as part of a sea change in American Politics, just like Richard Nixon's resignation. Outcast95 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support It's a fact (Wikipedia is not censored, so we should include facts regardless of how they may offend certain political factions), and as mentioned numerous times above, it's noteworthy as he is the only president to be convicted of a felony. I also think this discussion needs to be organized a bit, it has become hard to follow. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: Then a lot of people are going to learn what the inside of a WP:AE complaint looks like. We have a low tolerance for edit warring here—particularly edit warring against a documented consensus. I honestly doubt there will be a significant amount of that after editors see other editors receiving sanctions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support using "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. Since no other president, former or otherwise, has been charged with, let alone convicted of felonies, this is an extremely distinguishing fact about his legacy. Not including it would be like mentioning that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, but leaving out that he was the first person to walk on the moon. ShadowAZNman (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support - Because the convictions are an extraoridnarily unique characteristic of this former president. The convictions are very unusual for any leader of any country, and common sense suggests that the convictions should be prominently mentioned in the lede. Noleander (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment If I counted correctly, we're at 111 "support" and 70 "oppose" !votes right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The closer may judge that the minority has stronger arguments, making such tallies a bit pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Especially given that the oppose arguments have generally been based on policy and precedent, while the support !votes have, at least 50%, been based on nothing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I can only assume that arguments based on what unrelated articles do and arguments about "censorship" are going to be thrown out entirely, as these are not factors considered in Wikipedia's decision-making process. Same with any argument based on the argument that "it's important", since that's not the criteria for the terms used in the first sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely, and I myself voted "Oppose", it's mostly just to have a rough idea of how the numbers are going. I'm preemptively sorry for whoever will have to close this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, after quickly skimming the discussion thus far, it seems a decent chunk of that 111 are IPs and single-purpose or brand-new accounts. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Expand the the first paragraph/Weak oppose Most other convicted politicans don’t have it in the first sentence, however it’s notable enough to add a second sentence to the first paragraph. Cepeli (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - Obviously there's enough reporting on this. Precedent: lots of Wikipedia Bios have this in the first sentence. This one should be no different. It's a historic status too - no president has ever been convicted of a felony before. Easily worth mentioning for that fact alone. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Any precedent arguments work equally well both ways. Lots have similar things in the first sentence, lots of others don't. Don't cherry-pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They do not work the same both ways, as several examples from similar cases of American politicians being charged and convicted with felonies show it in the first sentence, for example John Dean, Darleen Druyun, Michael Grimm, James Traficant, and Corrine Brown. As well it is not an inaccurate description of him. Also I agree with @Cepeili: in their comment that the first paragraph should be expanded as well, since currently it is extremely brief and does not explain much concerning him, which is unlike several other former presidents (See Franklin D. Roosevelt) CIN I&II (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Matthew Lyon, Charles F. Mitchell, Robert Smalls, Joseph R. Burton, Henry B. Cassel, William Lorimer, Robert W. Archbald, William P. MacCracken Jr., John W. Langley, Harry E. Rowbottom, Michael J. Hogan, George Ernest Foulkes, Donald F. Snow, John H. Hoeppel, James Michael Curley, Andrew J. May, J. Parnell Thomas, Walter E. Brehm, Orland K. Armstrong, Thomas Francis Johnson, Frank W. Boykin, Daniel Brewster, John N. Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, Dwight Chapin, Herbert W. Kalmbach, Charles Colson, Spiro Agnew, Maurice Stans, Ted Kennedy, Martin B. McKneally, Neil Gallagher, J. Irving Whalley, Edwin Reinecke, Earl Butz, John Dowdy, Richard T. Hanna, Frank J. Brasco, Bertram L. Podell, James F. Hastings, Andrew J. Hinshaw, Richard A. Tonry, Charles Diggs, J. Herbert Burke, Frank M. Clark, Elliott Abrams, Michael Deaver, Melvyn R. Paisley, James G. Watt, Harrison A. Williams, Richard Kelly, Raymond Lederer, Frank Thompson, John M. Murphy, Jon Hinson, Joshua Eilberg, Daniel Flood, Fred Richmond, George V. Hansen, Mario Biaggi, Robert Garcia, Pat Swindall. That stops short of the Bush41 presidency, and I could go on. Did I not just ask you NOT to cherry-pick? (Best look again at Dean and Brown; beyond being seriously flawed, your argument is only 60% correct. Brown had it for eight minutes the other day, before it was reverted.) Sure, if you want to stretch my AGF, you could tailor the parameters so as to disqualify many of the above examples, claiming irrelevant distinctions. I've seen it before. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is tangential, but how do you know so much? Is there a filter function or do you just have a really good memory? Bremps... 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Bremps: I Googled "politicians convicted of felonies", which took me to List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Then I just went through the list, collapsing from exhaustion before Bush41. There may be a few cases of mere misdemeanor convictions—I generally didn't read any farther than the first sentences—but not enough to significantly alter the argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I wish I had taken the time to note the cases that did have a mention in the first sentence, and I'm not going through the list again (still exhausted). My fuzzy memory is that it was about five, which would be ~7.1% in that sample. If there is any precedent argument to be made, it's a clear precedent to omit this in the first sentence. But I'd settle for editors ceasing to claim the opposite and adjusting any !votes to date—or for the closer to ignore them. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming that I read correctly, in the list of names you provided, not a single one mentioned anything about crimes in the first sentence. A few referred to Watergate in passing, but nothing as obvious as "convicted felon". Cessaune [talk] 10:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  You read correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Going by precedence is valid here b/c the only comparible person is Richard Nixon, a former US president who was pardoned for felony crimes. Those crimes are mentioned prominently in the first paragraph before the infobox. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I predicted, tailoring of the parameters to suit one's goal. I'm actually surprised it took so long. You might take note that my evidence has been accepted by more than a few editors with far more experience, and countered by none. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ad populem aside, You posted a list of low level felons and ted kennedy?

  Senators breaking laws is nothing new. A president breaking the law lead to the success of the washington post. It triggered nation wide protests and election reform. It dominated the global news cycle for the entire trial

  Suggesting we treat Trump like Matthew Lyon is laughable. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Glad we could make you laugh. Your argument will no doubt be noted. BTW, ad populum (not "populem") is what Wikipedia calls "consensus". Far from being something to criticize, it's policy. a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so. At Wikipedia, it's good precisely because many (most) people think so, provided it's not a democratic vote. Hardly fallacious. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, it doesnt negate the fact that youre not engaging with my argument by using a fallacy. I thought you said "this isn't a vote" earlier? Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  youre not engaging with my argument I think you're making another newbie mistake. Discussions like these are not debates that can be "won" in the moment. Rather, you make your argument, I make mine, other editors support either yours or mine, and (unless policy clearly supports one side over the other) the closer counts !votes. So experienced editors articulate their arguments as best they can, and then they shut up for the sake of everyone. I think you've articulated your argument well enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then why dont you take your own advice? 109 talk contribs on this page alone. I have said my piece, have you finished saying yours yet? Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you pledge not to make another comment in this RfC, I will match your pledge. The net effect would be positive. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Eh, no per the "we can't even call Osama a terrorist in his first sentence argument. Being convicted of a crime makes him a felon, but it doesn't automatically make it life-defining. Mention it somewhere in the lede is fine. Zaathras (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well that's not quite true is it? His article's lede identifies him as the founder of Al Qaeda, and the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack. They didn't use the specific word, "terrorist" but they definitely identified him as one. Outcast95 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Re-read my comment and actually pay attention, please. My point is that the bin Laden article does not lead with "Osama bin laden is a terrorist." Zaathras (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support (with a slight change) - it's self-evidently extremely important information about the man, and to omit it would be blatantly contrary to WP:NPOV. But it should be "convicted fraudster" rather than "convicted felon", so that it's more informative as to the specific crimes he's been convicted of (to date). Ou tis (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, largely because it appears to be fairly normal on other politicians’ pages, and it truly probably is one of the most noteworthy things about him. Adamsmo (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly include it on the page, but perhaps not in the first sentence until a bit of time has passed so we're sure it sticks. I would suggest waiting until after the election dust has settled so tensions aren't quite as high, and this might be less viral. I don't feel strongly on this either way, and don't envy the position of whoever has to make the call. They deserves a barnstar, maybe we can have one made for the occasion.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Donald Trump Closer's Barnstar, decorated with colorful shields and spears. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment —

  American politician, 2 decades

  media personality, 5 decades

  businessman, 5 decades

  convicted felon, 0.0003 decades

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

How many presidents have been convicted on felony charge? 1/46. It’s notable. It needs inclusion. 9t5 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: imagine instead we were discussing a famous personality who then went on a shooting spree and killed many people. The time spent being famous remains far greater, but the fact would be that a significant event altered their status in the public eye overnight (even if it doesn't affect public opinion, or why they were famous originally).

Obviously this example is a more extreme case than what Trump has here. But when Trump became president, this was added to his article's 1st sentence regardless of how long he'd been president. This is the same office, and the debate could be summed up with: "is this event as significant as his becoming a president in the first place." Crawdaunt (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support for using “convicted felon” in the opening sentence. It’s unprecedented for a former President and major political party nominee, which makes it sufficiently relevant. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines and precedent make it clear that it would be included in the page of anyone else. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@PencilSticks0823: Anyone else except these and many more. I fail to understand how people can be so reckless with precedent claims, and I would expect a competent closer to discount any such claims lacking actual evidence (which doesn't mean a handful of cherry-picked examples). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As per WP:PRECEDENT and possibly touching-on WP:NPOV. As to the first point, other Wikipedians have pointed-out that when one’s notability is derived from other sources prior to the conviction, it is rarely — if ever - used in the first sentence. As to WP:NPOV it’s kind of obvious, no? I saw someone suggest that since other famous individuals whom have been convicted after achieving notability do NOT have their convictions in the first sentence, we should go and review ALL of those articles. This flies in the face of the entire purpose of WP:PRECEDENT, in my opinion, and I’m sure WP:NPOV would have something to say about it. Interesting to note that the Jussie Smollett article had this discussion and, despite the majority of his notability for most of the world stemming from his conviction, it was decided that his notability prior to his conviction was enough to not warrant the inclusion of his criminal conviction in the first sentence/article short description. MWFwiki (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support: He is a convicted felon. The removal of a statement stating such in the first sentence would be an act in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. We are not the former-President’s PR team. The fact this is even in need of a discussion is sad and questionable. Might as well ask “should we bar the inclusion of facts for this man just because he was the President?” The answer to which is NO. 9t5 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support: His conviction is historically significant, being the first US president convicted of a felony. As a non-American, Donald Trump's illegal activity during the 2016 election is, indeed, one of the main things he's known for where I live(on the west coast of Canada). Maybe in much of the States he's known for other things, but, as far as I'm concerned, his criminal activity is a defining trait. I know the conviction is very recent, but the controversy surrounding it has been ongoing for a long time. It is clearly distinct from other political controversies in that he has *actually been convicted*. It seems notable enough for first-sentence inclusion to me. Anyway, it's only a weak support because others have pointed out that this may be WP:Recentism, and because I worry (perhaps excessively) about my own biases. If it's not to be included in the first sentence, then perhaps somewhere else in the first paragraph (which would need to be expanded to be multi-sentence)? HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone's wondering why there's a lot of IP users/new SPAs coming here to support this RfC, I think it might be because it was mentioned on CNN? CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page. Not exactly WP:CANVASS-ing, but something people should be aware of. Regards, Endwise (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also perhaps from this post from Occupy Democrats? Viewed by 1 million people, apparently: https://x.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1796303015990976969 Endwise (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support "convicted felon" in opening sentence. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for simple consistency with other Wikipedia articles. It's only fair. He's not special. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chaotic Enby's reasoning. Also, the far-right is already convinced Wikipedia has a liberal bias. We shouldn't give them more fuel for that argument without good reason. Gottagotospace (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  media organizations shouldn't pander to public opinion in the ways that you suggest. The far right does not control Wikipedia and their opinion of Wikipedia is not a factor in determining whether an article is biased Editing-dude144 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to imply that we should pander to public opinion. What I meant was that we should be careful and thoughtful in our editing, and not be reckless or impulsive. We should carefully think through the reasons for making edits. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment got in a Slate article by the way! [2] Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw! The author notified me on my Talk page. That's what prompted me to come back to this discussion, actually. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:FIRST and WP:FELON. Trump has been notable for many many years, for things other than being a criminal. His status as a convicted felon is notable and important, and should be mentioned prominently in the lede. But it isn't so intrinsically linked to his notability that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. As for Blagojevich and other such politicians who have it mentioned, they are KNOWN for their criminal status. That's the only reason they didn't fade into obscurity like other IL politicians. Trump would and will be famous for his other various attributes despite this conviction. Is it important to mention? Yes definitely. In the lede. I could support maybe even the first or second paragraph. But not the first sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose First sentences are reserved (primarily) for the person's name, nationality, defining occupation, and notable context if needed; essentially who they are and what they are most known for. Trump has been a felon for two days. While yes it is notable that no other president has been a felon before, please look at other President's articles: Nixon, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, the list goes on and on: none of their first sentences include what makes them "unique" presidents in history (resign, impeach, assassinated, etc.). Second, third, twentieth sentence, sure, but not the first. We should wait for when he is inevitably convicted of more crimes and how much of his life/perception /commentary is based on his status as a felon and then revisit this conversation. I would also note that I find above arguments that including his felony somehow would show bias and/or damage wikipedia's credibility as ridiculous. Yeoutie (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support, as it is a verifiable fact and supremely notable that Trump is the only former U.S. President convicted of a felony. If not in the first sentence's list of accomplishments, it should be in the opening paragraph, not six paragraphs down the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "convicted felon" is almost never appropriate in the first sentence of a BLP. I've been saying this, and helping to remove this from BLPs, for years. Obviously it should be covered in the lead, but somewhere after the first sentence and by describing the felonies, not with the scarlet letter phrase of "convicted felon", a negative mark we only put in the leads of convicted criminal BLPs that WP editors dislike. Vadder (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, he is not notable (in the WP:N sense) for being a felon in and of itself; he is primarily known as a "politician, media personality, and businessman" who was the 45th president, as the current lead sentence states, with coverage of his felonies being contingent on those previous facts. This isn't "RationalWiki" with sassy dunks in the first sentence. Of course, it should be mentioned later in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His conviction should be covered in the article (and it is), it should be mentioned in the lead (and it is), but it is not a defining characteristic that should be mentioned in the first sentence. That's something that is done for people who are notable primarily because of their crime and conviction. Meters (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Question Is there such a thing as a snowball no consensus? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but arguably this is not one, there are too many yes comments to snow close it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean "snowball no" consensus, meant snowball "no consensus". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Even that would require some assessment of relative strength of arguments. What if one side has significantly stronger arguments? Then it's NOT "no consensus". Something this controversial needs an outside closer regardless. Even better, a panel of two or more, although that's less crucial. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend a panel of closers for this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I was surprised to find that felony details was not mentioned until the 6th paragraph. This type of information is usually mentioned in the opening paragraph for other criminals. Regardless of the individual, this is basic and defining information that should not be hidden. Bendono (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As many others have convincingly argued, it is and should be very unusual to use "convicted felon" in the first sentence of a bio (I'm not actually sure there's any case where I would support it, but that's a question for another day). There is no way for it not to look politically motivated, if we do it for Trump specifically.
  To be clear, the conviction absolutely should be mentioned in the lead section and probably in the lead paragraph, but even there a formulation like "convicted of a felony" should be used rather than "convicted felon". --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why should we use "convicted of a felony" rather than "convicted felon"? Both are accurate, both are in wide usage in reliable sources, and there are plenty of articles using "convicted felon." SS451 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  See the WP:FELON essay, particularly the section Suggested alternate construction to avoid labeling. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose putting in first sentence per User:Brightgalrs and User:KlayCax. No objection to adding it in the second sentence, however, or elsewhere in the first paragraph. The best analogue is Richard Nixon, though a criminal conviction is arguably more historic than the resignation, so it would warrant an earlier mention than at the end of the paragraph (as with Nixon's page). User:Donald Guy's table is pretty useful for seeing how we treat other presidential firsts. Bremps... 03:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot to mention that I support expanding the first paragraph a la Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton or Al Gore Bremps... 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that these comments made by a CNN guest may result in a flood of outraged watchers coming here to cast their vote. Not sure what the impact of this actually is, but it's good to be aware of any external influences on the consensus-building process. Bremps... 04:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The talk page was protected a few days ago now. I'm pretty sure IP editors can't comment anymore. Outcast95 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Oppose. Not in the first sentence, his primary notablility is not with the conviction. Cossde (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — The conviction might be overturned in the appeals process, which could include the U. S. Supreme Court. If that happens, it seems like it probably won't happen before the 2024 presidential election. From the Wikipedia policy Neutral Point of View, in the section Explanation, "The aim is to inform, not influence." The item is already in the lead and body of the article, so the reader is informed. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. His recent conviction is not what he is mainly known for, and the first sentences should be reserved for that information. JoseJan89 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support He is a convicted felon. That is an undisputed fact that cannot be emphasized enough. And I agree with those that said history will remember him as a felon. He is the first president to ever wear the label, which is of huge historical significance. In a Wikipedia context, the statement is factual, accurate, verifiable from many sources, and highly relevant. Since that is the case, yes, keep it in the first sentence.Coalcity58 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: As others have said, definitely not in the first sentence, though it should be mentioned later in the lede. As Vadder, Crossroads, and Trovatore put it, it generally feels like undue weight to have such a strong descriptor used in the first sentence unless it was the only thing he was notable for (which clearly is not the case here). It's certainly notable and historically significant enough to be mentioned in the lede, perhaps at the end of an early paragraph, but a strong descriptor in the first sentence is RECENTISM. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight, this feels like a polital attack. This is not what he is most known for. Dream Focus 23:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Meh. On one hand, yes, he is a convicted felon and this could go in the lead sentence similarly to other BLPs. On the other hand, he's not mainly known for being a convicted felon. He's mainly known for his business ventures and for his mediocre presidency. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment "Biden campaign plans to get more aggressive once Trump trial ends — The Biden campaign is considering whether to lean into branding Trump a "convicted felon" if he's convicted in New York.", NBC News Bob K31416 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wait: It's not even been a week since the conviction. We need to wait to see if reliable sources consistently refer to him as a felon. In addition, too much media and internet attention is currently focused on this very discussion to produce a reasonable result. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is notable enough to fit into his lead, but Donald Trump is not notable for his crime and later conviction. If this is historically impactful enough to define him in the future, they can put it in the lead then, or start another discussion. BurgeoningContracting 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (e/c) (disclosure: experienced editor but came here from Slate) (1) "Convicted felon" is too vague – there are lots of felony offences. (2) MOS:FIRSTBIO specifies the first sentence should state what the subject is mainly known for and should avoid overloading the sentence with everything notable. In Trump's case, this is his presidency, not his felony conviction. (3) Mandruss has exhaustively demonstrated there's no automatic precedent for American politicians with felony convictions to be described as "convicted felons" in the first sentence – I agree any comments claiming such a precedent should be discarded as based on a false premise. – Teratix ₵ 17:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes!! I agree with all of your points!! You made some excellent arguments. Like, is he a felon because he murdered a bunch of people? Is he a felon because of falsifying business records? Is he a felon because he got a fake ID to buy alcohol before the legal drinking age? All of those crimes could count as "felonies" in some jurisdictions. "Felon" isn't specific enough.

  And to reiterate, I agree with all the other stuff you said too :) Gottagotospace (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Mandruss explicitly proved the first sentence while neglecting to mention the lede in this article is exactly one sentence long. It is mentioned in the lede of American Politicians. If you want to expand the lede beyond one sentence then I could support not having it in "the first sentence." But as it stands the first sentence and lede is simply a list of things he is notable for, including being the first American President to be convicted of something. Outcast95 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do realize that the next 5 paragraphs after that sentence are considered part of the lead of this article, right? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Lede" means first paragraph, "lead" means the whole section. SS451 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Really? I thought it was just a difference between British and American English. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is way off topic, but "lede" is journalism jargon, which many Wikipedia editors feel should be avoided in reference to Wikipedia. See WP:NOTALEDE, which is not a policy, guideline, or even essay, just a summary of discussions related to the term. In any case people are certainly free to use the term if they want to, but I would not count on it being understood as specifically the first paragraph. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  See beginning of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for meanings in Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:LEAD: Newspapers have "lede" or "lead" paragraphs. WP isn't a newspaper, it has a lead section before the table of contents and the first heading, or, if you have to or actually want to use Vector 22 (why?), before the first heading. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Lead/lede debate/debacle aside, the RfC question before us is whether to use the exact phrase "convicted felon" in the first sentence specifically. I am not necessarily opposed to a first-paragraph mention a là Donald Guy's FDR, Nixon and Obama examples, but this is not the question at hand. – Teratix ₵ 02:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trump isn't notable because he's been convicted. He's notable because he was a former US president. He would remain notable if the jury had found him not guilty on all charges. And he, as a human being, isn't any more notable than he was prior to the conviction. The only thing that's notable about this conviction is the fact that no president, sitting or former, has been convicted of a felony. That has nothing to do with Trump's current notability and, as such, shouldn't be placed in the first sentence of the lead. Cessaune [talk] 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This person is unique in being both a felon and a former president. If a unique characteristic isn't notable and worth highlighting, then what is? Matt Gies (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support although not necessarily using the exact words "convicted felon", the 1st sentence should reflect the fact that he is the 1st former us president to be convicted on a felony in some way, as that is a huge portion of his notability now. Fieari (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in the first sentence on account of due weight and recentism. Trump has had a long and active life and career. Being convicted plays a relatively small part. Adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence as is would not be balanced. Senorangel (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – I feel like people are missing the point. The conviction itself being notable doesn't mean that Trump is notable due to the conviction. Simply speaking, Trump has been notable for a long time. He hit a plateau of notability the day he was elected. He's no more notable today than he was six days ago, or six weeks ago. Cessaune [talk] 09:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  The point isn’t the guy’s degree of notability. The point is that he's added another notable fact to his bio; the question is where among the other notable facts in the lead ut belongs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  My point was that Trump didn't suddenly become more notable after the conviction, which points to my belief that he isn't notable due to the conviction or, at the very least, more notable because of it. In most other articles, we say things like "convicted felon" in their first sentence when a major/the primary cause of their notability is the crime they were convicted for. That doesn't apply here. Cessaune [talk] 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seems too soon to even discuss this tbh. Wait a few months at least, maybe a year or two? See how it gets covered in RS and the rest of the article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly support was surprised not to see this already. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support — should have briefly (two words) ending the first sentence, and again with more detail as the last sentence of a multi-sentence first paragraph, and again as its own section. Having read most of these comments, it seems that confusion is arising from so many possibilities. Better as three parts. Experienced editor (since 2005), but came here from well-written Slate article.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support but only felon - we never call someone a felon unless they are convicted, so convicted is redundant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
  
• Support – this should not use the penultimate words "convicted felon" as if it's his identity, but the 1st sentence should reflect this significant event. Among his key accomplishments & defining features, he is the only U.S. president to ever be convicted of a felony. Ex: "... is a media personality and businessman, the 45th president ... , and the only U.S. president to ever be convicted of a felony crime." Crawdaunt (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another way to look at it is that this is the only period in history where a U.S. President has been convicted of a felony. I think you might want to wait to see whether the conviction will be overturned, possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That wording would imply that “the only…crime” is just as notable as the rest of his features. While I get that the liberal-leaning !voters here likely think it’s “zomg the most important thing about him”, ultimately it’s not. As an example, he could become the second ever President to serve split terms. His presidency has a lasting impact - his charges will not, and will fade into history when he dies (eventually). Likewise, his business empire will survive him, as will his TV personality time as the host of the Apprentice.

  So no, his crime is not as notable as the other things he’s done, nor is it more notable/“most notable” as some people have called it. That is a recentism-based view trying to use WP to “right the great wrong” of him having supporters, not actually trying to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: while yes, he is a convicted felon, I don't think this is relevant to the first sentence. Trump is mostly known to be the 45th president of the US, not mostly known for being a convicted felon. It should definetly be mentionned in the intro of the article (as it's a major factabout him), but NOT in the first sentence. The first sentence should focus on what he is the most known for. Cosmiaou (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - plenty of other celebrities have this listed in their first sentence. He deserves no special treatment. Bens dream (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, who? The type of people that have this title in their articles are career criminals, serial killers, serial rapists, large-scale fraudsters, etc. Read List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Cessaune [talk] 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're aware that all such comments have been debunked here; you commented there. I trust that the closer will ignore them, so there's really no reason to respond to them when the editors have failed to read existing discussion. It just adds clutter and makes the closer's job that much harder. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Cessaune [talk] 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can anyone tell me why the below collapse section was determined to be long and repetitive? Can i just collapse any thread and throw a subjective reason on top? Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you can (please sign your {{cot}}). Whether it's accepted is a different question. Right or wrong, a user's editing history is a factor, and 51 edits don't lend a lot of credibility. I don't necessarily support this collapse, but I'll abstain for the time being—and it's certainly not censorship as you asserted in your edit summary. Outright removal would be censorship, and even that is sometimes justified. Collapse is merely a way of isolating less useful discussion for the benefit of new arrivals and the closer in particular. It doesn't prevent the content from being read by interested parties (and one could even argue that the Streisand effect is in play). At best, this collapsed content is a far too verbose wall of text. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments from editor who already voted and long discussion Nemov (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment and I reiterate my Strong Support for the mention of "convicted felon" in the first or second sentence. The WP:ONUS really is on the haters here. It is a simple and important statement of fact that Trump is a convicted felon now, especially given that the accountability is on the accused when convicted, not us for playing the PR firm for his candidacy. So this RFC is being completely abused as the WP:NOTABLE well-sourced information should be in the article UNTIL an RFC says otherwise as it is NOT WP:UNDUE to leave it out. If the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy also decided that a flat-Earth was somehow offensive and someone sought to run an RFC on the Earth wikipedia article or Flat-Earth article, forcing us to leave out or bury information about the world being round, would that make any sense just because a lot of editors felt strongly about it?! When it comes to statements of fact-- and for many, a flat-Earth or the existence of Jesus or the crimes of Donald Trump or the existence of the Holocaust are very heated and controversial for many zealous people and in much the same way-- "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. For example, the article on Earth does not mention the fringe flat Earth theory." And likewise we shouldn't water down this article simply because the very act of doing implies that a serious & matter-of-fact conviction of a criminal may in some way questionable, as the Trump cult is attempting in its gaslighting of the public. It is a fact that this is the definition of WP:NOTABLE when Trump is the first President in the history of America to be properly convicted by a jury of his peers-- a trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and which must be respected as far as long standing legal precedence goes regarding the American justice system and the American Constitution dictates for its citizens. So, given all that, this should NOT be WP:CENSORed in the way it presented and buried in the article when this is simply a statement of fact. If facts somehow are politically biased then that's on the the subject themselves, not us simply for reporting it. If Mr.Trump or Al Capone or Harvey Weinstein or Ted Bundy are made to look bad because of how the facts are presenting on their wikipedia articles, then that's on the (convicted) criminals, not on us for merely reporting it. To be clear, Trump was convicted 34 times for 34 felony crimes and has many more indictments he faces. That is a criminal, factually-speaking. Yet, using the diplomatic language "convicted language" for a serial criminal here as an American jury now has decided he is completely insync with other articles that mention such important information in the opening paragraph. That this is not included in ALL articles for serial-criminals like Mr.Trump is not a rule that should exclude said information from this page. If the haters here are upset about the fact that Mr.Trump is being referred to as a "convicted felon" because it is controversial to do so, then we should simply mention that as well since that is also part of the news for this. We could say: "Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, businessman and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States of America and was the first President to be tried and convicted of crimes in a controversial episode of American history." Or something along those lines. Seen another way... when looking at what IS allowed in the opening sentence: "Donald Trump is an American politician..." He is one of many, MANY American politicians. So that's not all that special. And that label too is controversial. Should that be left out given the similar insincere fallacious logic that I've seen employed here?! "...media personality...," Also not all that special given the countless celebrities in the world. And also surrounded by controversy given his well-documented inappropriate behavior toward women and African-Americans while he was celebrity. Should this be withheld too on similar silly grounds? "...businessman..." And also not all that special, and he's in fact a failed businessman and now adjudicated fraudster according to the courts. Can't get more controversial than that... so we should axe that too, right? At least according to some here. "...and the 45th President of the United States and the first President in American history to be convicted of multiple felony crimes." Guess what? There is no other President in the United States that can share that distinction. If that isn't important or WP:NOTABLE then nothing is. And yet so many here in an example of Wikipedia online-mob rule are saying that this isn't as important as the other more common and equally controversial labels also mentioned in the opening paragraph. This is an example of a WP:FRINGE violation in the sheep's clothing of an abused RFC. Again, the WP:DUE information should be restored immediately UNLESS a group of admins close this dispute with proper reasoning as to why is should be WP:CENSORed. Because the idea suggested by some that this should remain watered-down and buried "for weeks if not years" because this happens to be about a convicted criminal with incredible political power behind him is wikipedia failing at its most important duty, to inform the reader, not 'protect them' from the truth. EmmaRoydes (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) I've read through your entire statement here and 90% of it is your opinion, with zero sourcing to back it up, and the other 10% borders on personal attacks of those who are discussing this based on policies/guidelines. You're free to have your opinion that this is the most important thing about him and must be in the first sentence for that reason. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not operate on your opinion, nor based on "righting the great wrong" of him not being called a criminal early on or not. Nobody is saying this should be censored. People are discussing whether it is due weight for the first sentence or not. And you've provided very little actual argument for why it is something that outweighs his other lifelong achievements that he will be remembered for 20, 100, 200 years in the future for. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) I have not personally attacked anyone here. No sources? Really?? It is an uncontested fact that Donald Trump was convicted of multiple felony crimes. I don't need to source the importance of why it should be included in wikipedia. Absurd. And in fact I cited and quoted 'many times' the wikipedia policy about the importance of treating Mr.Trump as no difference from any other convicted criminal. Including WP:CENSOR,WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE among other policy here. It is not 'my opinion.' I am advocating on behalf of the WP:NOTABLE facts. The Harvey Weinstein page is quoted as saying in it's first paragraph,"Harvey Weinstein (/ˈwaɪnstiːn/; born March 19, 1952) is an American former film producer and convicted sex offender." And recently som of that has been thrown in limbo following some recent appeal reversals. So should that information ALSO be considered mere "opinion" simply because Mr.Weinstein holds many academy awards and is responsible for giving us classic films like "Shakespeare in Love" or "Pulp Fiction"?lolol. Of course not. Because a jury convicted him of serious crimes and in America the social contract and constitutional agreement among its citizens is that "a criminal trial of the accused by a jury of his peers is a fundamental principle of their democracy, which must be respected as a matter of law and historic precedence." Given the hundreds of years of US Presidents and the fact that THIS is the first one fairly convicted of multiple crimes, and given the likelihoo How about AGF? EmmaRoydes (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) You made multiple accusations against AGF in your tirade. You also are providing an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for inclusion based on one (1) other page, neglecting to read User:Mandruss' clear argument above that even if we are going to take that argument, it actually supports not including it, because it shows that only about 5-10% of articles have it in their first sentence. I won't be responding further to you, but please take note of the contentious topics notice I'll be placing on your talkpage soon - while you're allowed to voice your opinion, making charged accusations against others is not appropriate for this discussion and does not lend to your comments being taken well by others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Aside from your essay failing to show how something should be added to the first sentence, I am now accused of being a member of the MAGA cult (speaking of AGF). You've made my day with a bit of humor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I mean, aside from the fact you are completely wrong regarding WP:ONUS, which by its mere definition is about onus being upon those arguing for inclusion and not exclusion, levelling unfounded accusations of being "haters" and part of the MAGA cult against those who oppose you is in ridiculously poor faith. Not everyone who doesn't want to speedily add another adjective to the lead sentence is part of a great Trumpian conspiracy, yknow! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Yeah, this horse needs more flogging. It probably won't earn you a sanction for WP:NPA vio, but it most assuredly violates WP:AGF—a core principle around here. And then to invoke AGF yourself? Not a good look! There is probably some MAGA-cult influence going on here, but we have it under control—by semi-protecting this page, flagging WP:SPAs, etc. I'd wager real money that a substantial majority of editors who oppose changing the first sentence are not Trump supporters. Per AGF, we should not have to declare that to earn your respect. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I find it interesting that IPs and SPAs continually claimed that we were biased against Trump, but now that Trump has been convicted of some crimes, we're being criticized for being biased for Trump. Pick a lane please. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This surprises you? As long as we declined to remove or whitewash negative facts about Trump, the 35% Trump-supporting base complained; now the 63% who dislike Trump are complaining that we're whitewashing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Since you have put a lot of effort into elucidating your thoughts, I'll analyze them in detail. For the record, if anything. -- The WP:ONUS really is on the haters here. Haters. Haters of what, exactly? And, no: "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It is a simple and important statement of fact that Trump is a convicted felon now, especially given that the accountability is on the accused when convicted, not us for playing the PR firm for his candidacy. So this RFC is being completely abused as the WP:NOTABLE well-sourced information should be in the article UNTIL an RFC says otherwise as it is NOT WP:UNDUE to leave it out. It is a fact that Trump is a convicted felon. And I'm interested in your "UNTIL". I disagree, per WP:STATUSQUO, which, though being relatively vague, advises one to stick to the status quo. If the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy also decided that a flat-Earth was somehow offensive and someone sought to run an RFC on the Earth wikipedia article or Flat-Earth article, forcing us to leave out or bury information about the world being round, would that make any sense just because a lot of editors felt strongly about it?! It's very entertaining, being accused of being part of the MAGA cult. I've been accused of being anti-Trump and pro-Trump within, like, a day. No, it wouldn't make sense. But that's not what's happening here. Please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. And the assumption that the people "driving this needless controversy" are part of some MAGA cult is unfounded. When it comes to statements of fact-- and for many, a flat-Earth or the existence of Jesus or the crimes of Donald Trump or the existence of the Holocaust are very heated and controversial for many zealous people and in much the same way-- "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. For example, the article on Earth does not mention the fringe flat Earth theory." And likewise we shouldn't water down this article simply because the very act of doing implies that a serious & matter-of-fact conviction of a criminal may in some way questionable, as the Trump cult is attempting in its gaslighting of the public. The proposal here is not to remove the phrase from the article, or even from the lead. It's about whether the words "convicted felon" should be included in the first sentence. The conviction is obviously DUE, regardless of if we include info about the conviction in the first sentence or not. Side note: most historians agree that Jesus, in some form, existed—see Historicity of Jesus. It is a fact that this is the definition of WP:NOTABLE when Trump is the first President in the history of America to be properly convicted by a jury of his peers-- a trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and which must be respected as far as long standing legal precedence goes regarding the American justice system and the American Constitution dictates for its citizens. No one (no one) that is anything shy of incompetent is arguing that the conviction is wholly non-notable. As I said before, the conviction itself being notable doesn't mean that Trump is notable due to the conviction. So, given all that, this should NOT be WP:CENSORed in the way it presented and buried in the article when this is simply a statement of fact. If facts somehow are politically biased then that's on the the subject themselves, not us simply for reporting it. We already do report it, in the lead: "In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, making him the only former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime." So it's not censored, though I don't think that's the right guideline here. Facts can't be biased—the way they are presented can be. If Mr.Trump or Al Capone or Harvey Weinstein or Ted Bundy are made to look bad because of how the facts are presenting on their Wikipedia articles, then that's on the (convicted) criminals, not on us for merely reporting it. Yes. But comparing Trump to Ted Bundy, Al Capone or even Harvey Weinstein... come on. Ted Bundy is notable only due to his crimes. Al Capone is notable primarily (primarily!) due to his crimes. Harvey Weinstein is notable due to his business ventures, primarily the Weinstein Company, and his crimes, which started an entire global movement. Trump doesn't even come close, as least as of now. This is just cherrypicking, and not even great cherrypicking. To be clear, Trump was convicted 34 times for 34 felony crimes and has many more indictments he faces. That is a criminal, factually-speaking. Yet, using the diplomatic language "convicted language" for a serial criminal here as an American jury now has decided he is completely insync with other articles that mention such important information in the opening paragraph. That this is not included in ALL articles for serial-criminals like Mr.Trump is not a rule that should exclude said information from this page. 1) Insync with which articles exactly, pertaining to the first sentence? Read List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. 2) Sure. There's no rule. Only policies/guidelines and precedent. Precedent is clear. Policies and guidelines, less so. If the haters here are upset about the fact that Mr.Trump is being referred to as a "convicted felon" because it is controversial to do so, then we should simply mention that as well since that is also part of the news for this. We could say: "Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, businessman and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States of America and was the first President to be tried and convicted of crimes in a controversial episode of American history." Or something along those lines. Haters, again. I'll ask the question one more time: haters of what, exactly? Also, I don't think many people are arguing that we shouldn't include it in the first sentence because it is controversial to do so. I've summarized the main argument too many times to count, so I'll spare you the read. "...in a controversial episode of American history" isn't very encyclopedic. Seen another way... when looking at what IS allowed in the opening sentence: "Donald Trump is an American politician..." He is one of many, MANY American politicians. So that's not all that special. And that label too is controversial. Should that be left out given the similar insincere fallacious logic that I've seen employed here?! That's not the argument being made here. Most people aren't stating that Trump isn't all that special due to the fact that he is one of many American felons. Again, I don't think most people are arguing that we should leave out the phrasing in the first sentence due to the fact that it is controversial. And the comparison itself falls flat under examination. "...and the 45th President of the United States and the first President in American history to be convicted of multiple felony crimes." Guess what? There is no other President in the United States that can share that distinction. If that isn't important or WP:NOTABLE then nothing is. And yet so many here in an example of Wikipedia online-mob rule are saying that this isn't as important as the other more common and equally controversial labels also mentioned in the opening paragraph. This is an example of a WP:FRINGE violation in the sheep's clothing of an abused RFC. It is notable. I don't think that anyone is arguing that it isn't. "Politician" or "businessman" are no more controversial than "convicted felon". They are all neutral and verifiable facts. Which is why, again, I don't think that anyone is sincerely arguing against the inclusion of the words due to the fact that they are controversial. Again, the WP:DUE information should be restored immediately UNLESS a group of admins close this dispute with proper reasoning as to why is should be WP:CENSORed. Because the idea suggested by some that this should remain watered-down and buried "for weeks if not years" because this happens to be about a convicted criminal with incredible political power behind him is wikipedia failing at its most important duty, to inform the reader, not 'protect them' from the truth. For reasons I've explained multiple times, I disagree. Status quo and stuff. And this is not Wikipedia failing—this is a major success for the system. -- Ultimately, some of your arguments make sense, if we were talking about removing the conviction from the lead entirely. But we aren't. This RfC is about the first and most prominent sentence in the article. Cessaune [talk] 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Comment and I again reiterate my Strong Support for the mention of "convicted felon" in the first or second sentence. @Mandruss and @Cessaune Okay, I have reviewed the fallacious deck-stacking and accusations of bad faith against me. Yet this is that interesting rare example of WP:AAGF. Because of simply glaring absurdity in arguing that we should 'bothsides' patently false & obscene matters, subjects like Holocaust denial or the 2020 election denialism or now this 'American-justice-against-the-powerful' denialism, for lack of a better label. In the case of the Holocaust, for example, the real scheme of the denialism there isn't to actually argue that the holocaust didn't happen. It's code used by disturbed people for saying the feelings of those Holocaust victims don't matter. And same goes for this new justice denialism that says we should treat Donald Trump differently than any other multiply convicted felon since the victims of his crimes don't matter. This wasn't parking tickets. It's 34+ convicted counts of trying to interfere with the 2020 election, for which the American justice system found he was guilty of doing unequivocally. And all this tut-tutting in the world over this won't change that we are simply treating a now convicted 'serial-criminal' and dangerous anti-Democracy cult leader (aka.Donald Trump) differently than we would any other person when it comes to reporting on it in a way that absolutely benefits the readers with all the gaslighting and disinformation he is using in service of his American coup attempts. And I have too much respect for the wikipedia mission to treat our projects with the highest level of journalistic integrity as I do for good journalism overall that I won't laugh it off, or my legit concern, as some of you are doing. Journalistically speaking, there is no President in American history that comes close to the brazenness and quantity of criminal activity and behavior that Trump has exhibited, and that's not a philosophical argument to be made. It's based on the facts, and that notoriety alone is why it is WP:NOTABLE and worth mentioning. And if calling Donald Trump a "convicted felon" in headlines around America (and the world) is good enough for major respected publications then it should be more than good enough for us. In fact, we have even removed the mention of "2020 election interference" from the lead, making it sound like this was simply just about "hush money" to the uninformed when that was central to the convicted and the allegations. Sorry, but too many here are missing the WP:POINT. So "flog this horse" all you want, Mandruss, because it doesn't change the fact that this horse is higher than your soapbox. EmmaRoydes (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) You don't need to reiterate your support every time you comment. You're just making the closer's life a little harder. I agree with WP:AAGF. Simultaneously, I believe that you are not assuming good faith. I analyzed your sentences in detail and spent a long time crafting a response, so merely because at first glance it might seem to be present–no. Simply speaking: when you accuse people of being part of the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy, I am willing to accuse you (with evidence, so as to not be WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS or anything) of not assuming good faith. I differentiate between accusing someone of bad faith and accusing someone of not assuming good faith. They aren't the same. I don't think we are treating Trump any differently than anyone else. Precedent is clear: we don't talk about the crimes of convicted American politicians in the first sentence of their bios, the vast majority of the time. Wikipedia is not a journal. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And if calling Donald Trump a "convicted felon" in headlines around America (and the world) is good enough for major respected publications then it should be more than good enough for us—that's not how we operate here. We refer to Trump's crimes in the lead already. Including the mention of the 2016 (I assume that's what you meant to say) election interference is just too much. The lead is bloated as it is. And the election interference is one of three federal crimes–do we include the other two? I think the phrasing is fine as it is. Cessaune [talk] 22:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) if were only talking about the first sentence, why has adding it to the second sentence been shut down? Thats inconsistent logic Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC) What was shut down was the adding of the words "convicted felon" to the second sentence while this discussion is still going on. You can see why below at #Burying the Lede. Cessaune [talk] 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC) in that discussion, the point was made that the rfc expanded beyond the first sentence and was about "convicted felon" being displayed promininetly at all. You cant just expand and contract the scope of what is being argued just to suit your own arguments. Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) If somebody adds "convicted felon", anybody can remove it, given that they abide by consensus #43's clause that [t]he mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. Essentially, they need a valid reason to remove it. The ongoing discussion is, in my mind, a valid reason: in my admittedly few years of editing here, this is the second biggest RfC I've taken part in, though it is absolutely dwarfed by WP:V22RFC2. It is WP:GAMING the system to sneak it in in the second sentence. If anything, we'd have to start a new discussion on whether or not it should be added to the second sentence. The Arbitration restriction requires that one must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. In practice, this is essentially expanded to 1) either WP:Bold-refine your edit or 2) gather a consensus for it. So, since it's been reverted, anyone who wants to add it has to argue their case. However, I think that it's highly unlikely that anything will be added to the second sentence until after this RfC is over. Cessaune [talk] 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Placing it in the second sentence is neither GAMING nor sneaky. But, I don't think it should be done without anther discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I disagree that it isn't gaming (it's gaming if done to bypass this RfC IMO), but it doesn't really matter. Cessaune [talk] 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) It is gaming, and in fact it's the most egregious form of it - this RfC started as a question over the first sentence, but enough people have opined here about whether the first paragraph should be expanded to include this, whether it shouldn't but should still be in the lead, or (small minority) to remove it from the lead altogether. To go add it to a brand new second sentence while it's actively being discussed and opined on is textbook gaming, just because the RfC itself says "first sentence". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) No, what is WP:GAMING is wording the rfc in a way that applies to current consensus 50, but then expanding it to cover the entire pre-infobox lede. Simultaneously to using consensus 50,you argue that adding it to the second sentence is under the jurisdiction of this rfc. This is what im talking about with the scope of the rfc. The title needs to be amended to include "pre infobox" or the scope of this thread must be restricted to the *first sentence* Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) That's the definition of gaming. Discussions do not have to be "explicit" and can take their natural flow. Just because the discussion started as a discussion over the first sentence does not mean it's okay to add it outside the first sentence while that is being actively discussed on the talkpage, regardless of whether or not it's in this section, another section, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC) then consensus 50 shouldnt even apply to this rfc. After all this is about more than the first sentence right? Chamging my support to second sentence inclusion. Its the only compromiseEditing-dude144 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC) It could be gaming, or it could be a good-faith attempt at a compromise solution (that's what discussion is for, rumor has it), depending on the individual. To determine which would require mind-reading. RfCs sometimes stray from the initial framing, and that's tolerated because it's better than going to another time-consuming RfC for each alternative proposal. Competent closers can deal with it, although I don't envy them and I think they're grossly underpaid. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Consensus 50 may not be the most applicable, but the general concept of don't add a contentious edit being actively discussed on the talkpage to the article while that discussion is ongoing applies - otherwise known as BRD cycle - even if the discussion happened before the bold edit, if it's being contested/discussed, it shouldn't be added in the interim until the discussion concludes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Absolutely. What's under discussion is how should we handle the conviction in the lead, and that's NOGO territory for bold edits until the discussion is resolved. If we're talking about bold-editing a second sentence because it's not what the RfC was initially about, then my mistake and that is gaming. Perhaps less out of ill intent than inexperience, to AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) weird, the topic reads this for me: NOTE: this RfC proposes to change current consensus item 50. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) RfCs sometimes stray from the initial framing, and that's tolerated because it's better than going to another time-consuming RfC for each alternative proposal. Try to relax that sphincter muscle. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) That just is bad faith, no assuming necessary Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I take it you mean "assuming bad faith". More inexperience, showing a misunderstanding of AGF. I don't doubt your good faith, I challenge your judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) no, I mean you said i should "Try to relax that sphincter muscle."??? Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, I know. That's about your judgment, not your good faith. So AGF does not apply. If I called someone an idiot, that would violate WP:NPA but not WP:AGF. There are good-faith idiots. Good faith: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC) That's what a consensus "add 'convicted felon' to first sentence" would do, something the OP didn't know or realize. As for "gaming", seems I'm one of the refusing-to-be-herded who opposed the label in the first sentence with the caveat that I wouldn't oppose mentioning the verdict in a second sentence in an expanded first paragraph. Comment requested, comment delivered — don't want to be mistaken for someone who thinks Trump is not a convicted felon or shouldn't have been indicted or found guilty. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• Strong oppose: Partisans and poor writers like to shoehorn "...and convicted felon" into the first sentence of articles (bEcAuSe iT'S tRuUuUuuUUe!!). It's bad form (even in biographies of long dead people, or of other lawbreakers like Martha Stewart), it reeks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in this case, and it doesn't really teach readers anything useful. "Convicted felon" is a status, not an occupation, and there are a thousands things Trump has done or is that don't merit shoving into the first sentence. Is Trump's conviction noteworthy? Yes. Should it be mentioned in the lead? Yes. Is there a chance the conviction might be overturned on appeal, rendering "felon" status moot? Also yes. Let's not pretend that all readers (or Wikipedians, or journalists, or biographers) were born yesterday and only have the past two week's worth of published information for reference and worldview. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support for first sentence, strong support for first paragraph. I think that most observers would agree that Donald Trump is unlike other US Presidents in character. However, expressing that difference in a manner consistent with NPOV is challenging. The important fact that Trump is a felon conveys distinctive aspects of his character in a clear and indisputable fashion, better than any attempt to survey biographies and opinion pieces ever could.
  
  If including “convicted felon” in the first sentence is considered undue weight, it would be acceptable to put it in a second sentence in the first paragraph. But this absolutely should be in the first paragraph, as it illustrates factually and neutrally why this man is different from the other 43 past holders of the office of the President (yes, he’s #45, but Grover Cleveland is counted twice). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if Wikipedia was around during the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. I have no doubt that, starting on December 19, 1998, editors would be tripping over themselves to include "impeached!" in the first sentence of Bill Clinton, because OMG it's so important right now look at all the newspapers! But with time comes wisdom. Look at the Clinton's lead now: it's restrained and conservative but still addresses the Lewinski scandal and impeachment. Richard Nixon was also the only president who (very famously), resigned from the office, but that's not clumsily tacked onto his first sentence. We have absolutely no requirement to shoehorn breaking news into the first sentence or paragraph of any article, momentous as it may be. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to have a beard and Barack Obama is the first and only African-American president so far. Neither facts are shoehorned into the first sentence. I think far too may Wikipedians try to emulate the style of daily newspapers (which tells you what was important yesterday) rather than actual encyclopedias (which tell you what was important over the entire course of a subject's life). Nobody is arguing for excluding the conviction from the lead, but I think it's simply too soon (and amateurish) to insert "felon" into the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well a major problem with the article seems to be that there is no lede paragraph. It's just a single sentence. So that's the choice right now. There is another RFC for a whole paragraph down further though. Outcast95 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Note that Trump is the only president that is a billionaire.[3][4] Yet being a billionaire is not mentioned in the first sentence or anywhere in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strong support for mention of "convicted felony" in the lede and in the first paragraph and first sentence.

  Bob, it is debatable whether or not Trump is actually "a billionaire" since he a documented pathological liar. Trump's fraud and lies about his actual wealth are objectively backed by many verifiable sources, and the facts are that he has a lot less money than he has let on. The civil court judgment against him is a now adjudicated fact as far as the American courts go.

  That a President that is elected was very rich or poor is not all that notable since there have been many all over that spectrum. But Trump is uniquely the only President to commit many crimes, to be adhjucated as a rapist by the courts, and the only President to ever be convicted of multiple felony crimes by a jury of his peers. Trump's criminality is one of the most notable things about him, as most of his crimes for which he is accused of-- and now convicted of in part-- are about him trying to illegally overturn democratic elections. If that is not WP:NOTABLE then nothing is.

  I have to say, the kid gloves approach here has less to do with how wikipedia is supposed to operate when dealing with a verifiable fact like Trump's conviction, and is clearly more about not upsetting the aforementioned "MAGA-cult" readers. Apparently the taboo of possibly upsetting the Maga-movement is a thing now. Fits in with the cultural phenomena in the west of an ongoing assault on reality and empiricism, and this fallacious idea that there are "alternative facts", and other such unfortunate breakdowns in civilization that we are watching in occur in real-time, as others here have pointed out.

  As far the felon Trump goes, apparently a WP:FALSEBALANCE in how we deal with his convictions is okay where in every other area it would not be. I don't see how Trump is really any more important than any other person with a wikipedia article-- as far as wikipedia goes-- other than the exception we are going out of our way to make him by either twisting ourselves in pretzels as some are doing, or putting on the blinders and basically saying "Wikipedia is making me do it!" No, it's a choice. One made partially out of fear, hubris, dogma and denial.

  2601:282:8980:C0F0:54B:F9F2:66F:74E5 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Struck as IP was range blocked for block evasion after making this post. Meters (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support: He was convicted for acts in furtherance of election interference in the very same election that won him the presidency. I have yet to see an argument for why him trying to unfairly gain the presidency is less relevant than him having gained it. They seem inextricably linked to me. He potentially only won in the first place due to this exact interference. Jwueller (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: All three positions mentioned in the first sentence make Trump relevant for Wikipedia independently. He's been relevant as a businessman, he's been relevant as a TV personality, and he's been relevant as a politician. Nobody comes to this article to learn about "Donald Trump the convicted felon", and if that changes in the coming years it can still be changed then. --2003:CD:EF01:8800:3179:5E8D:F4FC:25D2 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we please stop replying to other user's choices, every argument has been made, and if people are not listening to yours they have already rejected them, the longer we keep on the longer this will take. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I got your notability and due weight right here.66.69.214.204 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose What is notable (or WP:DUE) about Donald Trump is that he is the first president to win a felony conviction, not that he simply won a felony conviction. This is impossible to clarify in a single leading sentence. I agree it should be placed higher up in the lead, but in a form that allows for the necessary context to be clarified to the reader. Simple claiming he is a felon in the first sentence would not give enough context to readers from 10 or 50 years later. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Being neutral does not mean sticking your head in the sand when it comes to basic facts. There is a difference between being neutral and engaging in undue "both sides" balancing. If I add "the sky is blue" to the opening sentence of the sky and a million other people oppose it, what's the neutral, objective, encyclopedic thing to do? Continually revert the change because there isn't "clear consensus"? No, of course not, that would be laughable. Just as laughable as what's going on here. Donald John Trump is the first President in history to be convicted of a felony. I don't care what your politics are, if you assert that this isn't so enormously notable that it deserves to be mentioned in at least sentence two if not sentence one of this article, then you are clearly deluded. If Wikipedia's mission is to not take sides, then by delaying action on this Rfc, it has badly failed in that mission, because every minute of inaction is a loud proclamation of non-impartiality and a victory for the partisan wiki-lawyers.66.69.214.204 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I'd like to think that I am not "clearly deluded", as I oppose both a sentence one and a sentence two proposal. I support a paragraph two rewrite with the info stuffed in there. But maybe I'm too far gone and my opinion should be discounted. Who knows. Where's the rush? Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. We don't have any good reason to attempt to get this information out as quickly as possible. And I don't get how doing so suggests that we aren't being impartial, or that we are taking sides. Can you point me to this partisan wikilaywering? If there is anything egregious the closer will discount it in the final !tally. Cessaune [talk] 21:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarassing yourselves. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) You're not helping your argument, with personal attacks. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm attacking bureaucracy and red tape. If you choose to take it personally, that's your problem. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Keep up with the snide remarks & others might seek your removal from the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Tone policing has entered the building. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I don't see that your messages have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. However, they do seem to have a style that tries to belittle and criticize anyone personally whose opinions you disagree with, without naming them. I think I'm one of them and I think I can filter out that style from your messages when considering what you say, which doesn't seem to be anything new, just more aggressively stated. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Tone policing has sent backup. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Threatening dissenters is a great look. 2600:100C:B01A:96D3:FC69:5BBC:7D5A:6DBA (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Removed the harassment warning from your talk page without an edit summary I see. Also not a good look. Didn't you get in trouble with ArbCom for doing something similar? 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I asked a question and you didn't answer it, instead creating a strawman argument that doesn't attempt to control for differences. I would support adding "submerged" because if California were to fall into the sea tomorrow, millions of people would die. Not to mention the global impact of such a circumstance. Again, I'm curious: can you point me to this partisan wikilawyering? Because, unless you consider using polices and guidelines as fuel for an argument to be wikilaywering, I don't see any. People on both sides of this discussion are making claims that I don't agree with. But I don't see how that can be a partisan thing. Maybe I'm blind and you're correct, but until you provide some quotes, I'm gonna hafta disagree with you. Cessaune [talk] 13:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Mmm, no, that's hyperbole. Not a strawman. Millions of people haven't literally died, but US democracy has been substantially impacted, which affects millions of Americans. She/he/they are correct, you are blind. Y'all are missing the forest for the trees. 2600:100C:B059:ED61:5912:7D75:5F18:A889 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Well, if we assume that what was said was hyperbole, then it was, respectfully, not very useful as a comparison. One shouldn't use theoretical scenarios as evidence of a point if they are going to be blown grossly out of proportion–otherwise blind people like me will get confused. Also, I didn't conclude that the argument is false because I believed that a fallacy was committed. I disagreed with the main idea behind the comparison because I believed that a fallacy was committed. Two substantially different things. Yes, the conviction does have a far-reaching impact. But 1) it's far from the primary cause of his notability and 2) shoveling in "convicted felon" into the first sentence doesn't give readers any context at all. Which is why I support a paragraph 2 rewrite: we can actually talk about the conviction in a little more detail. Cessaune [talk] 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Well, if we assume that what was said was hyperbole, then it was, respectfully, not very useful as a comparison. No, that's not respectful at all. It was a perfectly apt analogy. Yes, the conviction does have a far-reaching impact. But 1) it's far from the primary cause of his notability... Ah, now THAT'S a strawman argument. He is not primarily notable as a businessman or media personality either, yet there they are in the opening sentence. And that's not an "other stuff exists" argument -- they belong there, and so does "only President convicted of a felony." 2) shoveling in "convicted felon" into the first sentence doesn't give readers any context at all. Nonsense. If we were talking about adding "cheeseburger lover" or "frequent malaprop" to the first paragraph, that would be shoveling. But we're not talking about something trivial or drive-by here. Readers will get context when they read on from the lede. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "Convicted felon" is to Donald Trump as the sinking of California is to California? Come on. They are not the same. I won't humor the idea that they are in any way even remotely similar. It's a terribly one-sided analogy. He was primarily notable for being a businessman and a media personality before he ran for president. He is much more notable for being a president, true. However, he isn't notable for being convicted of a crime. He is notable for being the first US president to be convicted of a crime. The fact that he was convicted isn't notable in and of itself, and neither is the crime he committed. They both rely on the fact that he was president to be notable, at least to the standards that would allow us to potentially place it in the first sentence of Trump's bio. I don't get how this is a strawman argument. Can you clarify why you believe so? My statement is only "nonsense" if you believe that "convicted felon" provides necessary context to the reader, and it doesn't seem like you do: Readers will get context when they read on from the lede. Cessaune [talk] 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) The felony conviction rate for United States citizens and residents of New York State is approximately 8%. The felony conviction rate for United States Presidents is approximately 2.3%, with a raw count of ONE. It is plainly, visibly, patently of the same magnitude in the political world. Your arguments and similar ones made above are specious. I won't accuse you or others of being willfully blind, but you are being blind and misguided, and it is very silly. Y'all need to stop being ostriches -- stop treating this like an anomaly (misstatement, meant the opposite) stop treating this like it's trivial and common and give it the correct weight. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) In a previous message you wrote, "Y'all are missing the forest for the trees." — I think the forest is the total information about Trump in reliable sources, of which the current felon information is a relatively small group of trees. Since we are currently standing in the felony grove, one could easily lose sight of the whole forest. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) No, Bob. The trees are the minutiae of Wikipedia policy and bureaucracy, and the forest is factual, notable, historic, important and due weight changes that badly need to be made in a timely fashion. Notability delayed is notability denied. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I don't honestly care if you disagree with my viewpoint, and the viewpoints of others who agree with me, but I'm tired of this presumption of correctness from your point of view. I'm willing to engage with the points you make, as long as you drop this presumption of correctness. Otherwise this is just a waste of time. And I'm tired of being accused of being "blind" or "clearly deluded" or "misguided" by people on the supporting side. Claims like this need substantial evidence. If anyone who agrees with these claims could come forward and explain them? Notability delayed is notability denied: no. The farther away we shift from breaking news, the easier it is to discern true notability. Remember this? It was very notable, until it just... wasn't anymore. Now, I'm not suggesting that the examples are the same in magnitude, because they clearly aren't. But delaying action helps us to understand whether or not an event is notable. In this case, whether or not an event is notable enough to be placed in the first sentence, meaning that it has to be pretty freaking notable. Demonstrate that Bob is wrong: that we aren't standing in the felony grove. Because I would tend to agree with him. Cessaune [talk] 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I'm happy to explain why I "presume" I'm correct. I "presume" because this isn't a debate about whose opinion is correct. This is a debate where my side has presented clear and convincing factual evidence and your side has countered with "I disagree!" I in turn don't honestly care if you think the Earth is flat. No one outside of Wikipedia and the Flat Earth Society does. But that's what you're doing here, Cessaune. You're arguing that you're entitled to your own facts. You're not, and all the sea lioning in the world isn't going to change the fact that your side is pounding the table on the rules when you're dead wrong on the facts. 2600:100C:B05A:A168:6548:C721:E098:C68 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Remember this? It was very notable, until it just... wasn't anymore. Remember this? It was going to just disappear in a few months until it just... wasn't anymore. And it's completely besides the point. "We don't know what's going to happen with notability" is a classic crystal ball argument. It's extraordinarily notable now, and notability is not temporary. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose insertion in opening sentence Per common sense, WP:DUE, and several statements made by others above, particularly per . Trump’s trial(s) and conviction made headlines precisely because he is extremely notable for other reasons. The rush to make changes, often while the news cycle (such as it is) is still proceeding, is emblematic not of conscientious editing methodology and best practices but of a burning desire to see WP echo one’s own feelings. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His notability is based on being president, and his previous celebrity, not for being a felon. Of course we can mention this in the lead, but not in the first sentence. Not yet anyway. His notability is not for this crime, not remotely. Perhaps this will change. The felon label needs more context than the first sentence can provide. TheSavageNorwegian 15:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This belongs either in the first or at the very least the second sentence of the article. Trump is unique in that he is the first U.S. president to have been convicted of not one, but 34 felonies. I think that suffices to make it a defining characteristic. 20:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Another unproductive discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Extending the "California falling into the sea" analogy above: Corporate needs you to find the difference between the following two arguments. 1. It's too soon to call Trump's felony convictions notable. We don't know the long-term impact this is going to have. Other political developments might diminish its significance. 2. It's too soon to call California falling into the sea notable. We don't know the long term impact this is going to have. Climate change submerging other locales might diminish its significance.2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) One can usually find such comparisons to support just about anything. Other stuff exists, and, in this case, the other stuff doesn't even exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) You keep using this phrase, "other stuff exists". I do not think it means what you think it means. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I don't think anyone should speak for Pam. But I look at those two arguments you list, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at a million other good sources that document the massive sea change that the conviction has already caused, and I come away convinced that any unbiased, rational person would have to say they're the same argument. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) You're getting the argument wrong. Of course it's notable. That's not even debatable. Notable enough for first sentence, however? Maybe, maybe not. That's the point of this massive discussion. Cessaune [talk] 03:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) No ma'am, you're getting the argument wrong. There is no objective "maybe not" here. The floor is "notable enough for the second sentence", tops. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Fine, then. At the very least, you're getting my argument wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say There is no objective "maybe not" here. Care to clarify? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 07:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately, the editor may be unable to respond for a week because the page has been semi-protected. [5] Seems like the soonest the editor can respond is 4 days if the editor registers an account and makes 10 edits. Alternatively the editor could respond on your talk page and you could copy it here, which is admittedly a bit cumbersome though quicker than 4–7 days. Just giving possibilities and not urging anyone to do anything. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• No this version of the WP:LEDE has a paragraph at the end that appears reasonable. WP:LEDE states: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I came here from WP:FRS[6] --David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also oppose for same reason I (and others) mentioned at Talk:Hunter_Biden#Convicted_felon_in_opening_sentence (permalink): Oppose in first sentence per Muboshgu: "WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone." and "it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes" and per Space4Time3Continuum2x: "MOS:LEADSENTENCE: 'Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE:The felony conviction is not the most notable thing about him...'" Also WP:Crime labels.

I'd like to know if there is anyone here who wants it in the first sentence would also do the same for at Hunter Biden, or is this a double-standard based on partisan hatred for one other side of a two-party duel for hegemony.--David Tornheim (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — From the New York Courts website,^[7]

  Felonies are the most serious types of crimes. Examples of felonies include:

• Murder
• Rape
• Robbery
• Arson
• Selling or possessing controlled substances

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support While it may not follow the same pattern as other convicted felons, Trump's label as one comes with much more notoriety, controversy, and most notably, public and media attention. It is largely relevant to his role in society and history and notable to his biography.--–uncleben85 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Super strongest possible oppose triple stamped it no erasies with a cherry and a little MAGA hat on top. I don’t really feel that strongly about it, I just find some of the gradations of support/oppose used in RfCs to be absurd so I’m joining in. I note the relative dearth of source citations to support this being DUE for the first sentence. And how could it be, having happened only last week? Arguments about the historical significance are WP:CRYSTALBALL, and arguments about the underlying crime being the reason for him becoming president in the first place have not been supported with source evidence. In my view, the opening sentence should take a lead from our guidance on categorisation, and apply labels only where sources commonly and consistently use them to introduce the subject. He’s back in the news for rambling about sharks, and sources are still introducing him as former President Donald Trump, not “convicted felon Donald Trump”. The label is not yet one of his main defining characteristics. It’s due enough to explain somewhere in the lead, just not in the first sentence. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Listed at Wikipedia:Closure_requests ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in first sentence. The lead sentence is for major aspects of the article (MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which for Trump is his political and media/business careers.. At this point, it is too soon to say if Trump's convictions will be that, and inserting it there is probably a BLP violation because it is currently UNDUE. It is of course fine to say in the lead, though preferably in a "Trump was convicted of X" instead of the vague and unhelpful "convicted felon" verbiage. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes for this discussion

Notes

The discussion above 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.

Trump will likely be convicted but not yet

According to the chief legal correspondent for Politico, Trump has not officially been convicted yet: “Technically, it occurs when the court enters judgment of conviction at or shortly after sentencing. Until then, there is still the possibility the judge could set aside the verdicts.”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and officially the US presidential election isn't determined until Congress votes to accept the electoral votes. But in both cases, there's no real expectation that things will change between now and then. --Carnildo (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Carnildo Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

From the US guidelines for sentencing, specific to determining criminal history: "IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED VIA TRIAL OR PLEA AFTER ARREST BUT PRIOR TO PLEA OR SENTENCING ON THE INSTANT OFFENSE - THAT CONVICTION IS COUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY DETERMINATION."

Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf (Page 1) 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources I'm reading are saying that he's been convicted of 34 felony counts. TarnishedPath^talk 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Judge already denied the motion to set the jury verdict aside. It would be highly irregular to reverse that. Outcast95 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted and the judge rejected the nearly automatic motion to reverse the jury. Could it be overturned in future? Of course. But until then, he is considered guilty, even in all appeals. Presumption of innocence ends with conviction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Creating sections like this leads to others just not taking seriously what you have to say going forward. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add a missing Oxford comma

First sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman" should have a comma after "personality". Oxford commas are great for reducing confusion. For example:

"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus and Debby."

"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus, and Debby."

I don't have enough edits on this wiki to do it myself. ThistleChaser (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good idea! Thank you. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not only because I prefer the Oxford comma, not only because this article uses the Oxford comma throughout, but because the Oxford comma is present in our current consensus item 50. Correct move, settled issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

During the editing frenzy of editors adding and removing "convicted felon" to the first sentence the serial comma survived until this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?)

While looking across Andrew Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in service of writing my comment in discussion above,

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

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

I would propose that what currently reads:

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

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

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

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

• Support* as these are all objectively factual statements.

Redditmerc (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your version is a significant improvement compared to the current one. Besides some minor grammatical issues, it looks good. Opportunity Rover (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

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

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

• It may be a good idea to discuss this after the RfC. We can't have too much going on at once. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, expanding the first paragraph will cater to both parts of emerging consensus - that it is necessary to prominently mention the conviction in the lead, and that at the same time adding the conviction to the frail one-sentence lead we have right now will fall afoul of DUE. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is this way because of years of consensus and discussion and it won't be changing over night, and I don't expect there to be agreement on the wording. The more wording you propose the less likely consensus will be met, especially on this article. To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, which is why we have the bloated lead section and the simple, non-controversial first sentence and paragraph. But sure, I'm open to expansion, but I really do think it would be best to see the completion of the RfC first so that its consensus may be a guiding tool and onus here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and I hope the two suggestions in this thread can serve as a base for fresh discussion after the RfC.

  As an aside, is it time for the talk page to be temporarily semi-protected? None of the IPs and fresh accounts are adding anything of substance. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a decision for me to make, but I've seen some substantive contributions from IP's here and, naturally, some not. Hopefully, the closer of the RfC, who should be an experienced one, can cipher the good from the bad. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  query then also (and whether it hasn been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective:

  • keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

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

  • forgo traditional structure for a lede and either ("simply" front-load the table of contents instead, or admit some sort of disambiguation-like un-prosed structure, e.g.

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American variously notable in his capacities as:

  • a politician — having served as the the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, currently seeking re-election to presidency, as well as competing in presidential primaries in 2000 and public ally
  • a media personality — having co-produces and hosted The Apprentice, participated in professional wrestling, and appeared (as himself) in various film & television projects
  • a businessman — overseeing the Trump Organization in developing & managing various real estate holdings, as well as developing numerous lines of personally branded merchandise
  • [pending ongoing discussions] a litigant and criminal defendant

  Donald Guy (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then, if the RFC above comes out as adding convicted felon/criminal you'd have a section for that too and it's even more called out. It might be better to have just the table of contents where you can have the category simply labeled "Civil and Criminal something something". Outcast95 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The table of contents does not show up for mobile users, who are a significant portion of our readers. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, then I have to go back to thinking it's appropriate for the current single sentence lede. But a paragraph lede including it would be the most appropriate thing. Outcast95 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite where I ended up on that abivr draft I mostly agree that it probably shouldn't necessarily actually focus exclusively on his presidency (though focus of two sentences doesnt seem unresonable)

I kinda think The Apprentice may still deserve some mention as well. and like I think there is a viable NPOV through line here but I can't quite put my finger on it

like...

"pursuing a strategy of personal branding and celebrity, Trump succesfully grew in recognizability from real estate developer, to figure of NYC tabloid coverage, to household name of film & television, to leader of a political movement and the first person elected to presidency of the united states without prior political or military office. Concerted attempts to control image and narratives have also seen him run well afoul of the law, notably becoming also the first president convinced of a felony: 34 counts of falsification of business records in the state of New York in the commission of another crime"

that's not necessarily better... but it's differently bad at least 😅 Donald Guy (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

note - I suck at the actual writing part, so this is just a rough example. Outcast95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

While I like Wilhelm's above example of what this would like like, in practice I could easily see the introduction of such a paragraph to be mired by multiple RFCs like the one we see above on every little detail. While I don't love the one-sentence opening paragraph, keeping the lead in chronological order helps to prevent a lot of time-wasting battles over what is more notable than what. Yeoutie (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't an RFC naturally a moot point after we have a consensus though? Also, we're going to have RFC's for quite a while on the conviction thing anyways. I'm not against sorting the lede chronologically. It would look hilarious, since his being president is obviously the most important bit. But right now the chronological paragraph that is the first actual paragraph is the normal second paragraph of a bio on Wikipedia; talking about his birth and college. That breaks with the other pages on US presidents. If we did a lede in hybrid I think it could work well. So the sentence subjects in order would be Presidency; Businessman; Media Personality; Criminal Conviction. So something more like-

Donald Trump served as the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential campaign. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the Covid 19 Pandemic. Donald Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31st 2024 he became the first US President to be convicted of felony charges.

Outcast95 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It helps if such proposals don't get far without appropriate copy edits. If they ultimately become consensus, then we're faced with the question of how much we can copy edit without violating the consensus. If you change it, the article content no longer matches what was agreed to. That's a headache. As we saw recently, an editor couldn't even remove an Oxford comma without violating consensus 50.

Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll support this version. DN (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I've now changed "campaign" to "election". Just in case that changes your support. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a very neutral account for the lead. I support the changes suggested. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I am definitely not a copy editor. I'm just trying to suggest a good neutral lede that could stand for at least the next few months without adjustment. And have that lede be in line with other articles for US Presidents. Outcast95 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support this wording, which covers the most important points in a neutral fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Donald J Trump convicted rapist of E. Jean Carrol

Donald J Trump is a convicted rapist for the rape/sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol 87.49.45.83 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He was found liable in a civil trial, not a criminal one. Wikentromere (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He is not a convicted rapist, he was found liable in a civil trial and was not convicted by a jury of his peers in that regard. CIN I&II (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say that he's an "adjudicated sexual abuser" or "adjudicated rapist" in the commonly understood use of the term? Jwueller (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the trial determined that Trump was (and is) a "forcible digital penetrator". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors Seeking Edits to this protected article

Editors need to remember that edits of any kind purporting to state facts are not relieved from citing reliable sources. Cecropia (talk)

Inclusion of criminal convictions in the infobox

His criminal convictions were added to the infobox yesterday and I reverted them, but they were re-added. (1) They should be removed until a consensus is met in the spirit of the BRD. (2) Similar to the RfC on "convicted felon" in the first line, these parameters in the infobox should only be included when DUE, and they are not considering the RECENTISM of the convictions and the relative WEIGTHT of the massive amount of RS coverage of Trump and his life. He is not a someone primarily known as a criminal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree but I've reached my limit of 3 reverts for today. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't.  Removed – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, please refer to Talk:Donald_Trump#What_we_do_after_conviction where there is obvious consensus formed for the inclusion in the infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath, FYI [8]. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 thanks for that although I'm unsure why you pinged me. Special:Diff/1226595859 and then Special:Diff/1226631131 are where the changes occurred. TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just trying to let you know that there was a problem, in case you didn't know, and that the link was now working. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks for that in any case because I'd used that link a few times when closing EC-protected edit requests. TarnishedPath^talk 11:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The comments of the two editors in this section indicate there is no consensus, and I make it three against. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, there is existing discussion that I pointed to. TarnishedPath^talk 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As one of the opposing editors pointed out in #What_we_do_after_conviction, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". BLP issue, and WP is not a democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly applies here as if I even need to say that because he's clearly been convicted. I fail to see what BLP argument you have. Again discussion is clearly happening in another thread where there is clear consensus. If you think that editors are misguided in their discussions, perhaps you should contribute there. TarnishedPath^talk 16:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers My two cents: in the American legal system, convictions are not considered final until at least the sentencing phase and until direct appeals have been exhausted. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, he is primarily known as a criminal now. He's in fact the *best known criminal in the world* precisely because of his previous public career. 176.94.78.33 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

BLPPUBLIC doesn't mention the infobox. The lead mentions the conviction, with the wording currently being discussed in an RfC, so it's not as if we're making readers read the whole article. (I might have contributed to that discussion but I somehow failed to connect "What we do after conviction" to the infobox. As it is, I would have had to say, "if we're the convict, we go to jail, or we pay a fine. If we're not, we're either crying into our beer or celebrating". Speaking just for myself: yay!) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x how do you suggest noting the conviction in the infobox is a BLP violation then? TarnishedPath^talk 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notifying @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x tagging only one editor who you know will go along with you is WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you tag all involved editors from the discussion I referenced. TarnishedPath^talk 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I notified Checkers as an editor in this discussion of the infobox who is probably not aware that the inaptly named other discussion is also about the infobox. That's not canvassing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x you have selectively pinged an editor, while at the same time not pinging other editors already involved in the discussing the topic. That is clearly WP:CANVASSING. Are you going to rectify that? TarnishedPath^talk 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What's to rectify? We don't need two discussions on the same subject. The other three editors in this discussion (you, me, and Muboshgu) are already aware of the other discussion and have now contributed there, and the editors involved in the other discussion don't need to be pinged to that discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Travel ban in 38 countries

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, could face significant travel restrictions as many countries around the world enforce strict immigration policies against individuals with criminal records". Hypothetical at present! Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, lets wait until someone says no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

convicted felon is back in the first sentence again

please would someone remove it, as I will not edit war soibangla (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve got it, there’s like one guy who keeps adding it back WxTrinity (talk to me!) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, do we really need the extra note underneath the note? It just got vandalized and now says, "EXTRA NOTE: Do not remove "convicted felon" to the introductory sentence until the relevant RfC is sorted out." I've done 3 reverts today and prefer to err on the side of caution. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If it continues, please point me to whoever is edit warring it back in and I can partial block them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Some people need to read wp:brd and WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

PP

Are we going to need full protection? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Redunancies and subjectively agressive

I think I will make a couple small changes today or tomorrow in the redundancies of words on the page such as "comments regarded as racially charged, misogynistic, and racist." There are also a couple places of wording that seems to be implying meaning other than their initial value, like "putting travel banned on Muslim-majority countries" instead of "middle eastern countries"- seems to indict him of doing it because it's Islamic religion and not because of obvious geopolitical reasons. LunarEcho87 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The heading "Travel Ban" suggests an original target of Muslims, later revised to countries with terrorism. The body does not use "Muslim-majority" like in the lede, and The Gaurdian article cited also does not use the phrase. The corresponding Trump travel ban does use the phrase, however (majority-Muslim). Sr Desayuno (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You must be an extended confirmed editor (the account must have existed for at least 30 days and made at least 500 edits) to be able to edit this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Burying the Lede

This edit is nonsense. Current consensus #50 regards the first sentence. Nothing about current consensus is violated by adding a second sentence to the first paragraph, and it is grossly irresponsible to bury something as historically significant and currently notable as the felony conviction of a former President. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You ain't kidding, the sheer anal retentiveness is staggering Gold2040 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, how about a link to a diff instead of to a revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, sorry about that. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Granted, consensus 50 does not preclude a second sentence. So the editsum could have been better. But I can guarantee you that no BOLD edit regarding this conviction is going to be accepted without prior consensus, so it doesn't really matter. If I had seen that second sentence added, I would have reverted with the editsum "under discussion, no consensus". At this article, we don't trample on process because we feel it's "grossly irresponsible". This may differ from what you're used to elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about notable, verifiable facts of historic importance. If the consensus is to not include said facts, the consensus runs counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We do mention the notable, verifiable facts of historic importance in the lead. We're discussing whether and, if so, how to mention them in the first sentence or paragraph. Patience, he's going to be a convicted felon for a long time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Will he though? Considering the court case? Slamforeman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The signing of Trump Organization checks by a sitting president and colluding with Weisselberg to book them as business expenses as official acts? Hm — food for thought. I must have a flag around here somewhere I can fly upside down. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Was it Cal Coolidge who said the business of America is business? Similarly, the business of Wikipedia is consensus. Not what individual editors claim is the purpose of an encyclopedia. That will never be seen as a legitimate argument around here, and there aren't any such trump cards in Wikipedia editing. You want to do something controversial, you get consensus for it. Period. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please define what is controversial about the fact that Trump is the first former President convicted of a felony. Is there a reliable source stating that some other former President was convicted first, or that the verdict read out in the Manhattan courthouse was fabricated? Rogue 9 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What's controversial is placing this in the first sentence, and, to a slightly lesser extent, in a second sentence. That is what you propose to do because it's the purpose of an encyclopedia. Placing it lower in the lead wouldn't be so much controversial in itself, but the exact placement and wording would likely need consensus anyway. The wheels of justice Wikipedia editing turn slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, you'd better hop on over to Richard Nixon and remove the statement that he's the only U.S. President to resign from the first paragraph there, then. This isn't different. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

He resigned in 1974, not two days ago. Also, he's dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

With more experience, I think you'll find that one can find such comparisons to support pretty much anything—with interminable debates about apples and oranges (see preceding). It's a pointless waste of mental energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the removal of the note was due to a misunderstanding — I didn't get it at first either. The editor was right in removing your bold edit since mention of the conviction in whatever shape or form to the first sentence or the first paragraph of the lead is under discussion right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is specifically about the first sentence. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. Although it's not in the first sentence, I think the two editors think it's close enough to wait for a decision about the first sentence before proceeding with a discussion about putting it in the second sentence. That seems reasonable, or is there some urgency? You might try making your case at the RFC, even though it is about the first sentence. For example make the comment that you think it should be in the second sentence and why. I don't expect you'll get a consensus over there but you might get some ideas about it. In any case good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If the closer saw a consensus for a new second sentence, I don't think they would have a problem with declaring it in their closure, regardless of the original framing of the RfC question. It's pretty common to have editors step outside the defined scope of an RfC. I'm known for saying that Wikipedia editors are cats that refuse to be herded. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I made my position quite clear in the RfC before ever starting on this. We're here doing this because I am following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as directed in the notes in the edit field of the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I would recommend that you wait to see what happens with the RfC, especially since there does not seem to be any support here for your edit at this time. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you really think you were being clever by adding "convicted felon" in a super-short second sentence, that this would bypass the consensus required for the opening? I mean, you really truly thought you found a silver bullet? Zaathras (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about a silver bullet? The consensus dictates the structure of the first sentence, not anything after it; if you want it to say something else, then it should say something else. This information belongs at the head of the article because the conviction of a former President is a notable and historic event. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You're WP:GAMING. Let the discussion take place rather than trying to bypass it. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am most certainly not. The discussion is taking place and I have done nothing to prevent it. If it comes to the manifestly correct conclusion that Trump's singular status as a convicted former President should go in the first sentence, then great, that would be even better. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is gaming. By putting it into the second sentence you're simply bypassing the discussion above; it ignores the spirit of the discussion. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

But in that very same rfc, you have people arguing that its "only about the first sentence". the title of the rfc should be edited to reflect that Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The presence of convicted felon/the jury's verdict in the lead is already under discussion. Yes, that discussion started as whether it should be in the first sentence or not, but it's clear from reading even the first dozen or two responses that the discussion is also over whether it should be in the second sentence, the first paragraph, a later paragraph, or not at all. Making an controversial edit while discussion is ongoing on the talk page is textbook edit warring. (ec resolved) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus page

Should the current consensus page be updated to remove all superseded or obsolete Entries? At present the current consensus page has a lot of entries which are superseded or obsolete, for example:
21. Superseded by #39
...
36. Superseded by #39
...
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
The shear number of these entries makes the current consensus page longer than it otherwise would be.
Should we remove the superseded and obsolete entries such in the above example 21 and 36 would disappear and 39 would renumbered to 37 (presuming that those were the only two superseded entries in the whole list) and 37 would read:
37. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)?
Doing this would significantly reduce the current consensus page length and aid readability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We can't renumber them as that would change which consensus people reference in existing edit summaries. --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? I'm sure people would be able to refer to the banner to see what number they want to use. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about not shortened it, just about not renumbering. --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We would lose the history of what was superseded or obsoleted and why that was done, and people reading the main space revision history would look up the wrong consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Waaay out of my league — I can't even figure out how to continue a numbered list after adding a couple of bullet points after a numbered item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The concern could be partly addressed. Some of the superseded or obsolete items come in groups: 15–19, 23–24, 35–36. These could be respectively combined, resulting in three lines instead of nine.

FYI there was a proposal a month ago to collapse the whole consensus list [9]. 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite. 16. Superseded by lead rewrite. 17. Superseded by #50. 18. Superseded by #63. 19. Obsolete.

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

Really? To "save" four small-text lines? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I was thinking of this,

15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

But if you don't like it, that's OK. No biggie for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but cost exceeds benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was pretty quick and easy. I could do it for the other two groups too, if it's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Cost in added complexity, something often misunderstood or overlooked. Sorry for not being clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I think this is a good idea. Collapsing multiple entries in a row which are superseded or obsolete would address why I started this thread by a fair bit. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is frankly silly. The superseded items used to be left "expanded" (uncollapsed) but stricken, as shown here. That worked adequately for awhile, then it was decided readability could be improved by collapsing them instead (I was initially opposed; but it has grown on me). That has worked just fine, and now we're complaining about the "difficulty" of having to visually skip the collapsed (and smaller-text) items and do a little more scrolling? Please. When it comes to trading simplicity for readability (dubious in this case), we're already past the point of diminishing returns. As Space4T indicated, we need this for history tracking, and it's fine where it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing the superseded entries, but I am strongly opposed to renumbering, as it would be confusing and it would invalidate the archived discussions referring to it. So, as long as no renumbering is attempted, I support it. Melmann 08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for not renumbering and think Bob has raised a great suggestion that doesn’t involve renumbering. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

{{hide| 15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete |headerstyle=text-align:left; font-weight:normal; |multiline=yes |content=

and putting after the group of items,

}}

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to do something I have never done before. I am asserting that editors who have worked with the list for years should have far more say in this matter. In this discussion to date, that's Slatersteven, Space4T, Bob K31416, and me. Others should give themselves time to get used to the list before forming judgments that would affect everyone now and future. Perspectives very often change with the passage of time. I won't give this up without doing everything in my power to prevent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So, a steel-cage match between Captain Iar and Commander Randy. This should be fun. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion may be easy to implement but it makes it much harder for people looking at the main space revision history to find the consensus item in question if they have to read all of them to find #22 mentioned as canceled or obsoleted in #38. And, again, I, for one, don't want to lose the history of each individual consensus item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

lose the history I don't think any serious proposal would lose the history. One would move it to a different page; another would create this weird two-level collapsed structure for consecutive superseded/canceled/obsolete items; both to save some minimal eyeball travel and scrolling. Smh. I think some people should leave user interface design to people who have done that for a living. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, cost would exceed benefit. It would add a degree of complexity that would not be justified by the dubious, very minor at best, improvement in readability. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

An excellent idea. The added complexity would not be that great compared to the benefit. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the "Criminal conviction...." section

Since the conviction in the hush money case four days ago, many things have changed. I will be expanding the "Criminal conviction..." section unless anyone can provide a good reason not to.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lighthumormonger, please see WP:ONUS. The burden for demonstrating it should be expanded is on you. There is no burden for us to suggest that it shouldn't be. How about telling us what you think should be added? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Amend current consensus item 10

current consensus item 10 should be amended, since the article Barron Trump now exists, and no longer redirects to "his section in Family of Donald Trump". Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I'm tempted to just do it, but we need a little more agreement to cancel an existing consensus. (And it would be a cancel, not an amendment. This discussion would be linked at the end of the canceled item. The difference is that a canceled item is hidden, while an amended item is not. Thus the consensus list would appear essentially as if Barron's BLP had always existed—while preserving the history of the issue.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit more complicated than I thought at first glance.

It looks like Barron Trump became an article in June 2019,[10] a couple of years after consensus 10 was established. Since the redirect was removed, and this article's link was not piped to the Family article, this article has been linking to the BLP since then anyway. And lo and behold, that's what the OP said.

Since there is no case for piping our link to target the Family article again, I don't see any choice but to cancel 10. To hopefully save some time, I will go ahead with that and I'm revertable if I'm missing something. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

American royalty, apparently, offspring of . Well, Trump's abode as a toddler had an article, too, so ... (They play the national anthem at the Easter egg roll?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

With #10 no longer in the way, Nikkimaria promptly removed all children links from the infobox.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see how long it will take before they reappear. Oddly, that's one thing I don't care about. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Mention of businessman in first paragraph of lede

Since Trump was proven to have commited fraud, it is biased to highlight his business ventures without mentioning the fraud he has committed. Portraying some one as a businessman lends credibility to someone who has been proven to act in illegal capacities rather than just legitimate business. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 50. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing the consensus list for mobile. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

how do you view the current consensus items? I honestly can't find them Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) You were just provided a helpful link. Try clicking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Your link doesn't work. This one does Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) It works for me. It has always worked for me and, presumably, everybody else (no complaints until yours). I don't know why it doesn't work for you. It's merely a section link, like Talk:Donald Trump#Home at birth. While one can link to the subpage, we usually link to the transcluded section on this page. It's also the first entry in the table of contents on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) None of this is visible/usable on a mobile device. This is the only link that has worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) I did not know that, being mobile-ignorant. I wonder how mobile users have gotten by for so long, and this should be taken up with the developers, whoever they are. We do section links all the time, and not just for the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @Mandruss: As a mobile editor, we can use section links, but we have to press an extra button to see talk page banners, like the consensus list. Section links therefore do not work for those banners. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @QuicoleJR: But our consensus list is not a banner. The transclusion is the only thing that makes it different from any other section on this page. I don't see why this would make a difference. Anyway, your comment seems to contradict Editing-dude144. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) As a user who only ever edits on mobile, the mobile version of the site hides everything above the first level-2 section behind an extra click. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @QuicoleJR: I've moved the section heading from the subpage to this page. Can you see the consensus list now? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @Mandruss: Yup, that fixes the section link. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) yes, ty! Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Well I'm glad we could get that fixed, some 6 or 7 years late (I've forgotten when the list became a subpage). Amazing this never came up. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

why can't we propose an addendum change to item 50 just as 50 did to #17 and just as rfc: convicted felon is attempting to do? Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Every major company in America has convictions on record. Do you think that doesn't make them real businesses? That's just how business is conducted in the U.S. at least. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Businesses and individuals are not treated the same way in journalism, so I fail to see how treatment of businesses is relevant to discussions about a single businessman Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is being a crook does not stop him from being a businessman, in fact that if anything it is a given. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that point, but that doesnt conflict with my argument that mentioning one without the other is a source of bias.

The case of a business vs business man is key here b/c businesses can be reformed, leadership can be changed, and a certain amount of legal fighting is a given in the business world.

Personally commiting fraud is a different story. There is no internal restructuring, policy reform, or leadership changes to rebuild an individuals credibility.commiting fraud in your own personal capacity is a permanent blemish on one's credibility as a businessman. Note that many convicted of fraud, state it early in the lede and use terms such as "ceo" and "entrepeneur" Mehmet Aydın (fraudster) Sam Bankman-Fried. Others such Kenneth Lay refer to the person as a businessman and allude to the fraud before the info box. Trump does not deserve special treatment in comparison to other notable fraudsters Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahh then I misunderstood your point, you would be OK with a mention in the second line like" and had been convicted of fraud"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, 100% on board with a second line mention (although that may fall under the currently open rfc). As long as it comes before the infobox.

That being said, while the rfc on convicted felon resolves, I think we are obligated to remove mention of him being a businessman in the lede Editing-dude144 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Even if EVERYTHING he ever did in business turned out to be illegal and corrupt, he would still have been a businessman. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

no one is saying he's not a businessman. I am arguing that the current description is misleading b/c it briefly touches on only the legitimate aspects of his buisiness ventures however his fraudulent business activity is not even alluded to (even though it is at least as significant if not more so.)

To eliminate bias/misinformation while the rfc resolves, we should either remove "businessman" or replace it with entrepeneur or more suitable language for cons. Editing-dude144 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Businessman" says nothing about whether the business was legitimate or fraudulent, so how can it be misleading? He has businesses, he is famous because of those businesses. Whatever his criminal activity, he would still be famous just by running those businesses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No we are not, his fraud does not stop him from being a businessman. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As with convicted felon, the first sentence is not the place for such analyses. We keep it dry, bland, boring, and uncontroversial. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Indictments in lead - with or without "alleged"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

From what I can see, the wording has been improved to not require any further alterations (the sentence was significantly shortened and no longer has the problem with alleged), making this discussion moot. Anyone can feel free to reopen if there is still a concern over the wording, but to me it appears that the discussion here resulted in a better wording avoiding the problem of "alleged" being needed for being too far away from "indicted" earlier in the prose. Offering my personal thanks for this being a discussion that resulted in meaningful improvement without unnecessary heat. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Minor point, but annoying: editors keep adding "alleged" to some or all of the charges. The latest example: He faces 54 other felony counts in three other indictments: a federal prosecution in Florida related to his mishandling of classified documents; a federal prosecution in Washington, D.C. on charges of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and a state prosecution in Georgia on racketeering and other felonies allegedly committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results. The editsum states that "wikivoice doesn't cast judgment on whether crimes were committed, esp. pre-trial". I think it's the other way around: "alleged" adds WP op-ed to the statements that Trump was indicted on charges of x, y, and z. IMO, it's generally understood that indictments are accusations that the prosecution believes the accused committed but still have to prove in a court of law. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think "alleged" is needed in this example.

You may think that it is redundant, since the context says that he is still facing these counts. Even so, the phrasing "racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to ..." would imply that these felonies were actually committed. (This is a factive construction. It is short for "racketeering and other felonies that were committed in an effort to ...") Journalistic practice is therefore to avoid this implication by inserting "alleged." Eclecticos (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Stating or implying in Wikivoice that these crimes were actually committed is probably also a BLP violation. It's fine for our sources to violate BLP, since they're not bound to it, but it's not fine for us to violate it. Pecopteris (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't remember ever hearing alleged used about the charges in an indictment. Alleged might be used in discussing some details. But it is redundant in the indictment charges as all indictments are alleged. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I allegedly agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that redundancy might be better than the alternative implication. Cessaune [talk] 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The alternative implication that indictment = conviction? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The implication that he committed felonies. Cessaune [talk] 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not going to lie, this seems like much ado about nothing. If the sentence is to stay as is, it's so long that "faces...counts" and the end of the sentence are so far apart that a re-clarification that the crimes were alleged is not untoward. Alternatively, rework the whole part such that the phrase felonies committed is not used. Because that very clearly implies that the felonies were actually committed, and that is not yet determined for 3 out of 4 cases so far. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is clumsy because in "allegedly committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results" is not about whether the felonies were committed, but about the reason. (Or that's how it reads.) I would consider dropping everything from and including "allegedly". The putative reasons are detail and should be covered in the appropriate place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

This would satisfy me as well by removing the phrase “felonies committed”, and I agree that the detail being in the prose is sufficient. I’d argue that only the locations of the indictments need be discussed in the lead and whether they’re state/federal. Perhaps He faces 54 other felony counts across federal courts in Washington DC and Florida, and state court in Georgia. would be even more concise and sufficient information. But I suspect there will be people arguing we need to explain the exact charges in the lead because “people need to know” or other similar arguments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you source regularly use the term "alleged"? If not, remove it. Cortador (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Political prisoner

Trump has self-identified as a political prisoner. :Biden was asked his opinion of Trump's "political prisoner" claim, to which he smirked. Should this rhetoric be added to the article?GobsPint (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Sources:

• Piper, Jessica (May 30, 2024). "Trump campaign immediately fundraises: 'I'm a political prisoner!'". Politico. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Trump in fundraising appeal: 'I'm a political prisoner'". New Vision. May 31, 2024.
• Herlihy, Brianna (31 May 2024). "Biden mocked for 'disturbing' smile after ignoring question about Trump being 'political prisoner'". Fox News. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• Dixon, Matt (31 May 2024). "'These are bad people': Trump unloads after his historic guilty verdict". NBC News. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• Allen, Mike (June 1, 2024). "Biden smile on Trump's 'political prisoner' claim makes campaign video". Axios. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Trump claims he's a 'political prisoner' after guilty verdict". MSNBC.com. June 3, 2024. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• CAMDESSUS, Camille (June 5, 2024). "Trump hails post-conviction fundraising bonanza | FOX 28 Spokane". Fox 28 Spokane. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• McQuade, Barbara (June 6, 2024). "The real motivation behind GOP calls to prosecute Democrats". MSNBC.com. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Column: Trump's pity party maligns America's real darkest days". Los Angeles Times. 6 June 2024. Retrieved 6 June 2024.

He says a lot of things so I don't think this is automatically a yes but if this becomes an significant and ongoing talking point for him, and it gets non-trivial coverage from Reliable Sources, then maybe. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lol, no. The Wikipedia does not traffic in delusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is proposing wikivoice. If there is adequate RS support, we can report delusions. As always, one question is (1) this article and a sub-article, or (2) only a sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did the OP add this article to Category:Political prisoners in the United States? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump self-identified as a political prisoner per WP:RS to raise capital: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. GobsPint (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

He did self-identify that way, yes, but that doesn't make it so. WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Only if it receives sufficient on-going coverage. That would probably only happen if he became an actual prisoner. TFD (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new article on delusional claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what annotations are for.GobsPint (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I self-identify as someone who doesn't believe this should be in the article. (I'm trans, I can make that joke.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

NO, as said he says a lot of things, many of them not true. Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Following that logic, we'd best get rid of this section. And others. We shouldn't give him voice, but we should document his voice if DUE. The more partisan tack: If he's delusional, shouldn't our readers know that?

Sure, we've used your logic to omit lots of things Trump said, but only because they failed the DUE test (not because they weren't true). I'm not convinced that's the case here—and claiming that the entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him seems pretty significant to me—but I'll leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really as court cases were launched over those. This is just his opinion. By the way we can say "The entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him" using those very words, and not put in his claim he is a political prisoner. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not that it matters for our purposes, but I don't think he's really delusional or paranoid. He's just shrewd enough to know that's his best strategy for re-election. The master at work. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Seems to have been ignored by most RS. Politico mentions it in one sentence about the campaign fundraising page. Way down in a June 1 AP article I found one sentence mentioning that the Trump campaign had sent a fundraising text message calling him a "political prisoner" (AP’s quotation marks) and pointing out that he hasn’t been sentenced yet. PolitiFact appears to have fact-checked proactively, seeing as he’s currently missing the essential part of being a political prisoner, not having been sentenced to a prison term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered taking it to Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Rhetoric or maybe a new Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Platform subsection? Self-styled victim of deep-state persecution seems to be one of his recurring main talking points these days. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note. For clarity, OP altered the timestamp of their first post after others had commented and added a bulleted list purportedly of sources where the "political prisoner" term is mentioned. (amended) (original). Zaathras (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Do any of those sources say any thing other than "he has said"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"...hush money payments to Stormy Daniels..." - request for more accurate description!

The lead presently has the words: a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, and the section on this issue in the article has the title Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case. While the phrasing "hush money case" is popularly used, there are numerous citations that object to that depiction in the NY criminal case. The main issue, what made it a felony, was that the business records were falsified in an attempt to cover another crime - in this case, the crime was that $130,000 was "given" to the Trump campaign under the table, in violation of election law. The article at present does not describe this important aspect of the case. I would prefer a statement in the lead something like a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign as a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. The Trump trial jury found that the payments violated election law, I believe; the payments to Daniels themselves were not illegal. This nuance is important given the extraordinary disinformation floating around! Bdushaw (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have personally heard multiple Trump supporters say things like "this is a made up case, because paying hush money isn't illegal!" - I've even heard non-supporters say things like that. It appears that some previous fence-sitters are now planning to vote for Trump, because they think this legal case is BS, and their misunderstanding is exactly as you describe, @Bdushaw. so I agree that some more clarity and specificity here would be good for our readers. Pecopteris (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the case is commonly referred to as the Stormy Daniels hush money case. If we call it something else, will readers find it?

• Courtesy of the New York Times's annotation of the indictment: Trump made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof", the other crime — unnamed unspecified in the this indictment and not mentioned on the verdict sheet — being the scheme to violate election laws and to mischaracterize the hush-money payments for tax purposes. Cohen went to jail for the "other crime"; Trump wasn't indicted for it, but the prosecution used it to bump up the charges, 34 x falsifying business records, from a misdemeanor to an E felony, the lowest class of felony in New York State law.
• The verdict was commented by most media outlets as "34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money criminal trial" or similar wording. Manhattan DA Bragg said at a press conference after the indictment that the alleged scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate and that the $130,000 payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.

We could add the gist of Bragg's statement to the second paragraph of Donald Trump#Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case but I oppose adding more detail to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Bold content added for clarification. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Adding further clarification in bold italics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks for that extra clarification! It seems like an interesting situation regarding the other crime, if it's the one that is a violation of campaign finance law by Cohen. It appears that it is one of various crimes that Michael Cohen pled guilty to in a previous prosecution as part of a plea agreement. It's the one of paying hush money that was alleged at the time to be a violation of campaign finance law. So the crime was never proved, and was part of a plea deal with various other unrelated crimes of Michael Cohen that may have been accepted by Cohen to get the plea deal. So Trump's charge was upped to a felony, based on a crime that was never proved, but was stated by the prosecutor in another case and by the defendant as part of a plea deal that involved several other unrelated crimes. I think this is in a reliable source somewhere but I'm not sure. Maybe it will appear more prominently in reliable sources when the case is appealed. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted. I hope we're not going to get in the situation we have at Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd with years of editors claiming they weren't murdered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh? You mean the plea bargain that excised Trump's name from the proceedings, proved that — deal-wise — Cohen was no match for Trump's Justice Department, and sent him into solitary confinement? Cohen pleaded guilty to "charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations", per the Southern District of NY. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, in New York, misdemeanors are criminal offenses that can get you up to one year in jail, not just a slap on the wrist. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include he's a Teetotal?

Underneath the health section is it possible to include that he is a teetotal. He said in a recent interview and I found this article from the New York Times [17] Serrwinner (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undone. Biden is one as well. It is an unimportant piece of trivia. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Yea, Biden is one, and it's also in his article and in more detail than what I inserted for this article. Maybe you should hop over there and remove it too. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, I just did. The mention on Biden’s page was added to the "Early life" section on April 10, 2024, no reason given. The source was a post Mark Leibovich wrote in the NY Times "Caucus" blog in 2008, "Riding the Rails with Amtrak Joe". Leibovich cites Biden answering a reporter in the large pulk that started to accompany Biden after Obama picked him for VP. The reporter had asked Biden why he ordered cranberry juice. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unimportant. It's been a significant part of discussions and information about him for a long time. As to whether Biden has similar reasons for not drinking or doing drugs is entirely irrelevant in relationship to an article about Trump, because the article is about Trump, not about Biden, and the article is not a comparison of the two. As to whether it's true or not? I don't know. We do know that Trump's Whitehouse had a lot of prescription medications being given out in recent reporting on the subject, but I don't know if we have any information on who this medication was given to or prescribed for. Centerone (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: that is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, betrays an overtly political perspective on editing. Riposte97 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all irrelevant, and your comment addresses nothing in what I said. Kindly refrain from pinging me if you have nothing to say, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of discussion about this in the archives. I see consensuses to include different specific content in 2018 and in 2021, but I haven't done exhaustive (and exhausting) research and didn't run across a later consensus to say nothing. I encourage someone to look deeper, someone who's better at that than I. Certainly, previous consensus should carry weight even if there is no item in the consensus list. This does not meet our traditional criteria for revisitation of a consensus: the situation has not changed, and there are no significant new arguments.

Once we have determined what the existing consensus is, perhaps a consensus item would be in order to avoid spending further time on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is more than three years old, and it says that both major party candidates abstaining from alcohol has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing, and Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump rarely discuss their non-drinking ways, much less present their abstinence as any kind of virtue. WP:WEIGHT applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, there's Iamreallygoodatcheckers addition,

Trump is a teetotaler,[23][24]

which would have preceded this item that is currently in the article,

Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.[23] He believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[24]

which can be compared to the presentation of this item in the article,

In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of agreements, named Abraham Accords, between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.[376]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Zaathras, I agree about the term teetotaler, which is why I proposed a different wording. I disagree with your other statements.

Trump has also never proposed legislation, advanced an agenda, or regularly given lectures or speeches on the topic of bankruptcy. Ditto for multiple other topics that are covered in the article, so I don't think your criteria from inclusion stands up to scrutiny. He has discussed his choice to abstain from alcohol multiple times over the years, due to his family history, and if you want to really understand who the man is, that's one piece of the puzzle. I can see how adding it to the article would benefit our readers, but I cannot see how consciously excluding it benefits our readers at all. On the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Identify the most recent consensus in the archives. I believe this will be a consensus to include, and to include something very specific. 2. Re-implement that consensus. 3. Add an item to the consensus list to prevent this from happening again. 4. Move on to the next earth-shattering issue.

The fact that people forgot about a consensus is not a valid reason to revisit it. A change in the editor mix is not a valid reason to revisit it. Process errors are to be corrected, even if discovered years later. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The section identified by SpaceTime above is the most recent in-depth discussion I could find. Riposte97 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Good. Step 1 is completed, and discussion should cease at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion took place in February 2021 and didn't make it onto the consensus list. The BOLD edit in April 2022 wasn't challenged for two years, i.e., any reinsertion of the content now is another BOLD edit, according to you and NeilN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus list is a convenience tool; it doesn't add strength to a consensus (people trying to make that so has been one of the objections to consensus lists, as we saw recently at AN; don't be that guy). And a consensus doesn't have to be in the list to count.

Unless you claim that Feb21 was not a consensus, Apr22 was a process error. Process errors are never legitimate process, no matter how long it takes to discover them. So the de facto consensus argument doesn't hold water. Let's not compound one error with another. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's just as significant as him playing golf as exercise or the battery thing. It adds 4 words to the article. I mean it's whatever I guess 🤷 Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

"It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century" It's mentioned in other articles like Warren Buffett and Cristiano Ronaldo though, and I'm sure others too. Serrwinner (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

USMCA/Trade agreement section of lead

Currently the lead has a sentence related to trade and international agreements: 'Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

Given that the question of withdrawing from or replacing NAFTA was an extremely prominent feature of the 2016 campaign and heavily featured in mainstream media sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, I modified this sentence to 'Trump initiated a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

This edit was reverted on the grounds that the USMCA/replacement of NAFTA is not leadworthy. It seems as notable if not more notable than the decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is mentioned in the lead. If the lead is going to have a sentence on trade agreements, the trade agreement that was most prominent throughout Trump's presidency should likely be included. Onyxqk (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course this is notable and leadworthy. No brainer. I liked your edit and I'm surprised it was reverted. Pecopteris (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As did I. I thought it added important information. Riposte97 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering that USMCA "largely maintains or updates the provisions of its predecessor", I don't see the point. Little has changed, whether NAFTA or USMCA. This is not the large-scale change that the other things mentioned were. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This exactly. Even the article on the USMCA states in it's opening that it's largely just NAFTA again, just with a different name. It's not nearly as impactful as the trade war with China. Cortador (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The impact of USMCA seems larger than some of the other items included in the lead that only existed for brief periods of time/had limited actual impact (such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which was only in effect for a period of a few months before being reversed by President Biden). It was one of the main topics pertaining to trade discussed in reliable sources during the presidential campaign and Trump's presidency, and still is in place impacting trade relations across North America.

From the Wikipedia page on the Paris agreement: 'The U.S. government deposited the notification with the Secretary General of the United Nations and officially withdrew one year later on 4 November 2020. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office, 20 January 2021, to re-admit the United States into the Paris Agreement. Following the 30-day period set by Article 21.3, the U.S. was readmitted to the agreement.' Onyxqk (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump's involvement in this was minimal. It's UNDUE. See previous talk page discussions. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on USMCA, Trump's involvement in the agreement at a high level does not appear to be minimal (presumably Trump's personal involvement in the specific details of the final trade agreement was limited, as is fairly typical for trade agreements): 'The present agreement was the result of more than a year of negotiations including possible tariffs by the United States against Canada in addition to the possibility of separate bilateral deals instead. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump's campaign included the promise to renegotiate NAFTA, or cancel it if re-negotiations were to fail. Upon election, Trump proceeded to make a number of changes affecting trade relations with other countries — withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, ceasing to be part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and significantly increasing tariffs with China — reinforcing that he was serious about seeking changes to NAFTA, while drawing wide criticism as well.' Onyxqk (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

• No (Summoned by bot) "Canceled" in favor of what exactly? Where is the place in the article you think we should call Trump a liar? I don't see a neutral, encyclopedic way to refer to someone as a liar, when we have "makes false statements" right there. As for calling individual falsehoods lies, I'm a bit more open to that, and it's fine if it's a direct quotation. But honestly, I think this RfC isn't stated clearly and you could do a whole RfC just for "lies". TheSavageNorwegian 23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In favour of not having an article-specific editorial policy stating that subject of the article cannot be called a "liar" in Wikivoice independently from what RS state, just like basically any other article on Wikipedia. This RfC wasn't opened to replace this policy with another specific one, but to see whether there is consensus to cancel it. Cortador (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure we don't call other article subjects liars in their articles either. It's just that in this one, the topic keeps getting raised repeatedly. It's just an extension of no contentious MOS:LABELs. My instinct is the minute we remove such a policy the topic will immediately arise again. It's doing no harm as-is. TheSavageNorwegian 14:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  What other subjects are called liars or people who lie by RS? Effectively banning a description used by RS isn't avoiding labels, it's a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Comment We would need to see evidence that "Donald Trump is a liar" has become an oft-repeated mainstream point-of-view since 2017, in reliable sources. Has it? Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is list of sources that is part of the discussion I liked to, as well as a list of sources in the original 2017 discussion. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• No. Not encyclopedic language, and the lack of veracity around Trump's statements is already abudently clear. I can't see what benefit there would be to adding the word 'lie' in Wikivoice, and would make the NPoV arguments about this article considerably worse. — Czello ^(music) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No/Bad RfC I am unsure that any politicians tell the truth (or any businessman), I am unsure therefore that Trump is unique there. Also I dislike RFC's that ask open questions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand you position. If you are unsure if Trump is unique, why do you support a special editorial policy that only exists for the article about him? Cortador (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No How is this not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS label? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No - Best to leave it as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No In an effort to WP:Dropthestick, I simply add my voice to the chorus here and move on my merry way. Penguino35 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes/support of partial revision. We should not use the word "liar" but the word "lie(s) " is justified when the claim is shown to be a falsehood and it is shown that the subject knew it was false at the time of making it. By partially revising C22 to only apply to "liar" we can make the rules concise such that it *would* be MOS:CONTENTIOUS to override it. But as it stands now, the word "lie" is not a value-laden descriptor.

Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• No. There is no justifiable reason to overturn the previous consensus. JoseJan89 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Partial yes - if he lied, and it’s reported as a lie or falsehood in reliable sources, there is no reason editors should have to juggle words and call it “a false statement” rather than “a lie”. That is a simple synonym that will save space in this article when discussing his false statements. That said, there is no reason that we should be calling him a liar in wikivoice. As House MD says, Everybody Lies. Find me someone who hasn’t told a lie in their life, and I’ve found your newest liar to add to the list (or something like that). So yes, it’s inappropriate to label him as a “liar” - but it’s not inappropriate to call specific statements he made lies if that is the shortest/most concise way to express their falsehood. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, and I’m making this comment after preview so I’m indenting it, but I think there should be no restriction on calling a false statement a lie if and only if reliable sources call it a lie or a known falsehood. The consensus currently makes it sound like things should not be called lies in the article at all - and I think there should be a different discussion over when things should be called lies or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Idea to consider

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics.

References

Notes

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

"despite losing the popular vote"

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

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's notable, because it's a very rare quirk of the American electoral system. The last two presidents that lost the popular vote were George W. Bush in 2000 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Both of their lead sections mention the fact that they lost the popular vote.

The only other two cases are John Quincy Adams in 1824 and Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877. Both of those were special cases, which are explained in the lead sections of the two biographies. It seems reasonable to mention it in this lead section, too.

It's not a "partisan rip" if you accept the legitimacy of US electoral law. It's simply pointing out a notable fact. Pecopteris (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a tough call. Yes it’s very notable, but if I had to trim the lead I think it would be among the first things to go. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree “while” is more neutral compared to “despite” Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I have an idea on how to rewrite that sentence. End the sentence at Hillary Clinton and split into a new sentence. Remove the efn that clarifies how the election system works, as it will now be fully visible. It would now read something along the lines of Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee. Although his primary opponent, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote, Trump won the presidency via the electoral college. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A president winning the election while losing the popular vote is notable because it rarely happens, and especially so if said president is an incredibly divisive figure. Cortador (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As said above, it is a peculiarity of the US electoral system this can happen, thus is notable so that non-Americans can understand how he won. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeating what I said when I reverted the bold edit: removing the information that he did not win the popular vote is whitewashing, especially considering that he doesn't just claim to have won the election in 2020, he also claims that he won the popular vote in 2016 — never mind that his opponents got 3 million more votes in 2016 and 7 million more in 2020. Non-Americans need an explanation why the person who received the majority of the votes in 2016 did not win the election. The note is the best and shortest way to do this, and it was much discussed and amended several times. Alternative wording without the alleged MOS:EDITORIAL words "while" or "despite": Trump, the Republican Party nominee, won the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, won the popular vote. Whether current or alternative wording, the note is needed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1) It's not whitewashing to observe the election result. It's blackwashing (if this term doesn't yet exist, I’m coining it) to add a caveat to a lawful election. Trump's false claims are irrrelevant to assessing that question.

2) Most democracies have an internal executive, so most non-Americans would immediately intuit this. The 'popular vote' is a myopic American preoccupation.

3) It doesn't belong in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Most democracies have a what? The U.S. is a presidential republic where the president is not elected by popular vote but by an electoral college that favors the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. E.g., in 2016 California had one elector per 712,000 people while Wyoming had one elector per 195,000, i.e., a vote cast in Wyoming was worth 3.6 votes cast in California. I’m fairly certain that many Americans can’t intuit this, let alone people living in presidential republics such as Brazil, where the president is elected by direct vote and each vote is worth exactly one vote, or in parliamentary republics where a parliament elected by popular vote elects a head of government. Anyway, I kind of like Giovanosky's cogent bold edit, so I didn't bother to count my reverts and left it as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation of parliamentary democracy is incorrect. An internal executive means that the executive is formed by the parliamentary party with the most seats. The parliament does not elect the head of government. This means that the 'popular vote' can have little to do with who heads the government. For an American, compare it to an electoral college, where the electors are also congressmen. That is the more usual system around the world, and why I say that the 'popular vote' is a very specific preoccupation mostly found on the American left.

Giovanosky's edit certainly reads better, but the material simply does not belong in the lead. It is superfluous for most readers. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracies have different ways of forming governments. In Poland, e.g., the president and head of state is elected by popular vote and appoints the prime minister and the cabinet members. Their appointments must be confirmed by more than half of the members of parliament. In Germany, the ceremonial head of state/president nominates the candidate for the chancellorship proposed by the party or coalition of parties with the most votes, and the full parliament then votes. The coalition of parties may not include the party with the most votes (e.g. 30%), but it still represents the majority of popular votes cast. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed the preposition from "despite" to "while". 1) "while" is already used in the body. 2) "despite" gives the impression that there's something nefarious about winning the election and losing the popular vote. 3) We had a discussion about this a while ago (can't be bothered to comb through the archives) and there was tentative support to change the preposition from "despite" to "while". Cessaune [talk] 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead initially said "although" and "but" in 2020, then "while" until it was changed to "despite" in Oct 22. After this discussion in June 2023 it reverted to "while". Changed to "despite" on June 1, 2024, I reverted to "while" on June 9, and was reverted a few hours later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like while was the long term version and I see no compelling evidence that there’s consensus to change it - so it should be restored to 'while' and if editor(s) want to open a discussion to change that they can do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Best to restore long-term version. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Change: Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.

To: Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote, although neither candidate won the simple majority. Mjb8034 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No case has been made while this wording is more suitable for the article that the current one. Additionally, "simple majority", as defined on Wikipedia, is an ambiguous term, and can both mean that a candidate has the most votes of any party participating in a vote, or 50%+ of votes. Cortador (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)