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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

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. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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. (October 2021)

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

Lead: Consensus 43 vio?

Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, Space4Time3Continuum2x, could you provide a rationale for this edit? The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think that when your removal of longstanding content from the lead is challenged, you need to provide a rationale for the removal on the Talk page. (Your edit summary merely says "rework lead".) Per MOS:LEAD, the lead gives the basics in a nutshell, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of Nikkimaria's comment, "The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This. Adding a handful of words about every single topic adds up to a lot more than a handful, and when the lead is so overlong there would need to be a much stronger justification for doing that. In fact it would be appropriate to do more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well this has taken a strange turn. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2xSo why is there an issue with adding "just a handful of words" about the causes of death on January 6? Now it is highly misleading:

"he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This statement saying "resulting in multiple deaths" is MISSING CONTEXT. This source I cite below clearly spells out that all deaths were either natural causes or suicide or Ashley Babbit, not the result of violence of the rioters. The average reader, including over half of the students I showed this, is led into thinking that the deaths were violent after mentioning an "attack."

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

(Personal attack removed) 68.234.168.22 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we say "violence by rioters"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. You already uttered your opinion in "This is biased and false", above (here, here, and here). Consensus #62 applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the personal attack? Has a comment been removed?

I agree that the current wording is misleading. 'Resulting in' can clearly be read two ways, one of which contradicts #62, as it essentially means the attackers killed them. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The personal attack was removed per WP:RPA. To point you to that edit would largely defeat the purpose of the removal. It's in the page history if you have the time and the interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think that was an appropriate removal, but I don't care enough to argue the point.

Focussing on the issue, the current wording can be read to violate consensus. The simplest way to fix that is probably just to end the sentence at 'attacked', but open to suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Space4T, I have difficulty reconciling your editsum with #43. It seems to me you should've provided separate editsum rationale for each and every change item you reverted, even if that required 10+ edits. I know that's a lot of work.

It also seems to me that Nikkimaria should have facilitated that by splitting their edit into discrete pieces. Mass changes like this are always a problem, to the point I might support a consensus item forbidding them in the lead or anywhere else. Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. (It would also force editors to slow down a little with their bold edits, never a Bad Thing.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How exactly would we go about forbidding mass changes? Just curious. Cessaune [talk] 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I don't do details: the devil's in them. Lol. Yeah, I asked myself the same question. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, as you know, and I think it would be doable if we put our collective mind to it. I don't think it could be codified with precision, and Wikipedia hates that kind of thing anyway. It's one of those things where there are three areas or zones: a clear "yes" (i.e., the vast majority of bold edits here), a clear "no" (e.g., Nikkimaria's edit), and a gray area in between. For the most part, the only disputes would occur in the gray area, and it might not be excessively large. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would potentially save a lot of time, because people could get down to discussing the real issues in dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It was one bulk edit involving removals, changes of sentence order, and copy edits, and I challenged most of it. My objection wasn't that an edit to the lead hadn't been discussed beforehand. From now on, I won't ask editors to take edits I challenge to the Talk page; I'll leave it to the author to figure out what to do. In this case, it was also redundant because the editor isn't new and has been active on this page for a while. Instead, my editsum should have said s.th. like "partial rvt - challenging rmv of info vital to understand e.g. fam. sep., type of covid misinformation, rollback of environm. policies, the astounding number of felony counts …". It's not as if editors (not just me) hadn't complained about mass edits before. If there had been 10+ separate edits, I or other editors could have objected to individual ones. Editsum "rework lead": I know we're not required to state a reason, but it's a courtesy to do so, especially in a much-litigated article such as this one. Maybe the reason for removing e.g. mention that he separated migrant families at the border would have convinced me or other editors not to challenge it? (First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I left out a word - can't really call it a typo. Brain spasm? I was referring to your sentence Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So I gathered, but I guess I misunderstood you, thinking you were thinking of "minimizing" as in minimizing a window or something.

I suppose I could be more cynical and say that an editor might do a mass edit to make it more difficult to challenge (all the more reason to ban mass edits). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do recall discussion along the lines of, "If you edit en masse, don't complain about being challenged en masse." What we're considering above is simply formalizing that and giving it teeth. Your editsum would have been "rv per consensus 66" and #43 would not have been in play. Or, better yet, Nikkimaria would've been aware of #66 and refrained from the mass edit in the first place. I think it's worth pursuing. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Trump lead is about twice as large as the Biden lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My take: The lead is too long because lead summarizes body and body is too long. You can't fix the former without first fixing the latter. This well-intentioned reduction is occurring in the wrong place.

But we're mixing a process dispute, which is how this thread started, with a content dispute, and it might be more useful to separate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like obesity leads to all sorts of medical problems. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mos def. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Regarding this edit: your edit summary is absolutely correct that he spread other misinformation, which is why your revert is incorrect - specifying one kind of misinformation makes it appear that that was the only kind, when in fact it was a much broader issue. Similarly with the "slowly" piece: the problem was his immediate reaction was denial or contradiction, which is what the text goes on to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: We had a ginormous discussion about this sentence almost exactly a year ago, and the current version is what we landed on. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ginormous discussion didn't find consensus for this version so much as it fell back on it as a default, because editors struggled to balance concision with the nuance of describing the various misinformation at play. The reverted version solves the issues raised in that discussion: it is concise without misleading, it is correct in a more comprehensive way than the current version, and it leaves discussion of those nuances to the linked article for those who wish to learn more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Consensus version restored. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the item you cited indicates, there is no consensus on specific wording; the only requirement is that his reaction is mentioned, which it was prior to your revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the wording has remained largely as-is since, I'm afraid it is. Feel free to see if there's support for your proposed change. Otherwise, status quo ante. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At best, your editsum rationale was incorrect per the cited consensus item. IMNSHO, any editor would be within process to revert you on that basis alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: In addition to the above, your most recent revert violates the arbitration remedy; please self-revert. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Re: [1][2] Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.

As I said previously, an editor would be within process to revert you on the basis of your incorrect edit summary. You could not dispute that fact, so you resorted to other tactics: a de facto consensus argument and a no consensus argument, neither having any merit in this situation. Even if you claim they have merit, you can't play them like trump cards against the opposition of two editors. That's not how it works, and I think you know that. It's like linking to WP:NPOV and expecting all others to bow in deference—a common newbie mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

All that said, if Space4Time3Continuum2x sides with you, that makes it 2–2 and in fact no consensus. It's not entirely clear to me that he does, so let's ask him. If there is no consensus and status quo ante is clear enough (I haven't checked), you WP:WIN.

Even so, you and others went about it the wrong way: disputes should be addressed on this page, not by re-re-re-reversions on the article page, and edit summaries are a very poor substitute for collaborative discussion. Only after the discussion has played out should the article be touched, if then. I don't much care how things are done elsewhere, or even what the guidelines say (guidelines have to be written for the general case); I've spent enough time elsewhere to know that method doesn't work very well for highly contentious subject areas. It favors and rewards the aggressive, thereby encouraging aggressiveness. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sequence of edits: Nikkimaria, my rvt, NikkiMaria rvt, Zaathras rvt, Nikkimaria rvt, Zaathras rvt. Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the 2023 discussion (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 , and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy your process analysis. I'll also drop out of the !voting, since I don't have a content opinion here (my error). That makes it 2–1 in favor of status quo ante.

This kerfuffle points to the importance of stricter adherence to BRD, and I arrived late causing me to read the situation wrong. Apologies to Zaathras for some of what I said.

Nikkimaria: When one's bold edit is reverted, it goes to the talk page until there is a consensus for the change (or the bold editor chooses not to challenge the challenge). As we've seen, there is some disagreement about what constitutes a consensus, but we weren't close to one at the time of your first revert. Disruption ensued. Zaathras's reverts were also wrong IMO (the remedy for article disruption is not more article disruption), but yours was wrong first. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We may disagree about what constitutes a consensus, but what is clear is that it's not a vote. At the time of my first revert, the only argument put forward in favour of status quo here was a previous discussion that arrived at no consensus. That hadn't changed by the second. Space4Time: do you have a rationale for your preferred version? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your argument is invalid, so it doesn't count, so I win." I don't think I've ever seen that logic succeed, nor should it. Except in cases where no rationale whatsoever was given (that's what a vote is), we accept the numbers or appeal to a higher power, such as RfC or dispute resolution. Space4T's rationale is here.

Or, we can try to change the numbers by swaying others. If that fails after a reasonable amount of time, see above. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We discount invalid arguments all the time - there's several items in the consensus list along those lines.

I responded to Space4T's edit summary in my post above; I'd be interested in seeing further discussion around that, if anyone has counterpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not enough to be right in your view; you have to persuade others that you're right. If you can't do that, you're not right by Wikipedia's definition of right. Very little is so cut-and-dried black-and-white. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm very interested in anyone weighing in on why they feel I'm wrong on the substance of the edit under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the only question being how much more time you want to commit to such a small issue, both yours and others'. Nobody is required to respond to you, as I'm sure you know, and a failure to respond does NOT constitute surrender. I know it can be damned frustrating, but we don't have to keep talking until you think we've talked enough. If others have had enough—and until you successfully pursue another avenue—and unless other editors jump in before auto-archival of this section—this is a settled issue against your bold edit. Gaming the system? Depends on one's perspective.

But your first revert was still wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Revert of official nomination

See edit

According to these RS Trump is the official nominee...PBS March 2024 - NBC March 2024 - AP News March 2024 etc...etc...

Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...

I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. DN (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio Republican legislature's attempt to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after Ohio's certification deadline for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline they gladly amended to 60 days the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
• Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." CNN: "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the [Republican] establishment". FT editorial: "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 20 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)

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)

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

Charges in the Miami case

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Georgia indicted Trump for felonies concerning Georgia, i.e., attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia ("I just need x votes"), attempting to gain access to voting machines, etc., and we only name one charge (racketeering). The charges on the federal level are different, and replacing jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their efforts with along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aide may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wealth

You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an unimportant detail. As for the WWE, let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I self-reverted on the income tax part, since I did not realize that that sentence referred to how much he paid for all taxes. As for the WWE, do you actually object to this removal? I really do not see how it is important enough to include here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. WWE: I vaguely remember trimming that section considerably some time ago which was met with considerable resistance. WWE is big in the U.S., and Trump used it to market his persona just like the other shows (Howard Stern, Trumped, Fox and Friends), so IMO the two sentences are justified. But if nobody else objects to their removal, I'm not going to revert. It may result in something wordier, less well sourced being added. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

About the Jan 6 commission

@SPECIFICO: I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Were the charges actually related to the Jan 6 referral? Currently, they do not seem related. If they are not related, the referral did not directly lead to charges and my original point stands. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Inline tag in the lead after being reverted

@Nikkimaria: You made a bold edit to the lead, were reverted, and then tagged the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have an active discussion about this going above? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that this is the same content Nikkimaria had removed before. Doing it again while the content is under discussion? I started a new discussion because it didn't seem right to add this new tag to a discussion that's been ongoing (slowly) for two weeks, and this tag is for undue weight, not excessive detail. Not sure what to do about this now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such tagging is for articles that don't have a lot of competent editors around, and it feels more than a little WP:POINTy. I'd like to see a lot less of it here. Instead, use the damn talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"People" already here don't need directing, and I don't recall ever seeing such a tag attract attention from "outside". If that's happened a handful of times, that doesn't justify the article clutter. It's little different from the {{Very long}} tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Home at birth

I am going to revert Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk · contribs)'s removal of the mention of 85-15 Wareham Place. Besides having a Wikipedia article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. Ylee (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like he was born while his parents lived on Wareham and they moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown. I don't see why the article couldn't convey both; it doesn't get much more "biographical" than this, and virtually anything pre-presidency is some improvement (where there is no sub-article, as here). Space4T: "Is WP at least getting paid for advertising real estate?" Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Really. Did you look at the cite, Newsday Classifieds? You can rent the place at Wareham, fully furnished, comes with a life-size cardboard cutout of Trump. There is a sub-article, Residences of Donald Trump, gets an average of 150 to 200 views per day. It has the addresses of both houses. moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown: 1950. Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, wrongly claiming that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, this NYT article, does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

House flipping 1, house flipping 2, Trump Media stock house flipping 2.5 Quote: Mr. Trump’s childhood home was briefly available for rent on Airbnb, and a plaque memorialized his conception. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ylee: Your reinsertion of the challenged bold edit violated BRD restrictions in effect on this page (see the banner "Warning: active arbitration remedies", above). Please self-revert.
Status quo ante:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4] Trump.

Your original edit, addition in bold:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert at 85-15 Wareham Place in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

Current edit:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

I challenged the insertion of the content, i.e., the address, both as an undue detail and because it is incorrect - he lived in the mansion much longer than in the Tudor. The current iteration is even worse, IMO, adding his parents' address at the time he was born. I fail to see the significance of either. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit I would not be aware of if it wasn't in the article for a few hours..... now lost to history because someone doesn't like a link. Moxy🍁 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Many interesting tidbits were lost to history because reasons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if they all involve the stewards of this article? Moxy🍁 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Again? Kind of funny, 'though. I'm usually one of the "stewards" who catch flak for opposing the removal of details. Can't win for losing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think someone's parents address when they were born belongs in articles unless there is something significant about the address, for example if his parents had lived in Gracie Mansion or Blenheim Palace. TFD (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Is it really that important when we are already at the point of trying to save space? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for violating BRD; I thought that opening a Talk thread would be sufficient compliance for the rule (which I knew applies to the article) for something relatively innocuous as this. I think that the address of Trump's family at the time of his birth is relevant; Trump lived there until the age of four, so it's not like a temporary residency in which his family happened to be on vacation in that week or something, either. I agree that not every home he lived in while growing up is relevant here, or (say) the addresses of his dorms at Fordham and Wharton; residences of Donald Trump, as noted, exists. Trump Tower does appear in this article; it is notable both on its own and as Trump's primary residence for decades. While not quite on that level, I submit that the closest thing to his birthplace is also relevant here.

As for "real estate advertisement", I echo Mandruss (talk · contribs)'s incredulity at the accusation. Since when is Newsday not a RS? I didn't create the Wikipedia article on 85-15 Wareham, so some degree of notability has already been established. Ylee (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the facetious wording, seemingly directed at you. I was commenting on the most trivial minutiae in Trump's life having been memorialized with WP articles. The house isn't notable. After Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016, real estate speculators hyped it as Trump's childhood home, and it became part of Trump's "self-made billionaire from humble origins" persona, never mind that he grew up in the 23-room mansion with cook and chauffeur on the other side of the block. I just proposed merging 85-15 Wareham Place into Residences of Donald Trump which already mentions both places. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

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.

---

Please add Felon to the introduction page as now Donald Trump is the first Ex-president who is also a felon Markhhe (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is already in there. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not.

It says:

"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."

It SHOULD say:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." Hazeust (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an active discussion as to whether to include "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is not circumventable. Until that discussion ends the sentence must remain as it is, as the community workshopped that sentence in 2021 and wishes for it to remain unaltered until a discussion concludes otherwise. —Sirdog (talk) 02:24, 31 May 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.

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Strong Support 66.235.229.94 (talk) 21:53, 30 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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.[3] 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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 [[WP:NOTNEWS}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)
• 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 said DFlhb (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) edited 06:49, 31 May 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (2)

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.

---

add convicted felon to his description for accuracy 12.35.128.178 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus needs to be established in the above RfC. --Firestar464 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is an ongoing discussion on this topic above. Feel free to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Be careful about declining edit requests within this vein as "active RfC" since the RfC focuses on the first sentence of the article specifically, which this requested edit does not specify is where they want the change. There is going to be an influx of requested edits similar to this and many such people are going to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention. That said, I was still planning to decline as  Not done regardless, as the request is not specific enough and this article has sufficient attention from extended confirmed editors that such changes will inevitably be added. —Sirdog (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC74:6240:4518:BB2B:9BB0:A19 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 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.

Add to lede that Trump is a convicted felon

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.

---

Now that Trump has been convicted it should be added to his lede as it's an unprecedented and important piece of information about him. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 21:58, 30 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (3)

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.

---

Add convicted felon to the descriptor at the top of page. 50.231.103.218 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is a discussion above in which you are welcome to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a convicted felon and per the norm that should be in the descriptor at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bc74:6240:4518:bb2b:9bb0:a19 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead..curious as to how many candy bars protection is going for Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s spelled “lede.” And what you did right there is spelled “own goal.” Itsspelledlede (talk) 01:04, 31 May 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.

Convicted felon

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.

---

Convicted felon. Why isn't this specified in the article? The Manhattan D.A. said it himself, convicted of 34 accounts in the hush money case. That's being a convicted felon. 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See the RfC above. This is a bit complicated, and needs a community consensus. WxTrinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not complicated?

If any one of us would've been convicted of any illegality, we'd be stamped as convicted felons – the dinosaur-chicken parallel argument/logic.

This' New York, Manhattan. This is like the epicenter of all matters related to the justice system in the US.

This isn't rocket science, no? 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the rocket science isn't whether or not he's a felon, it's whether or not it belongs in the first sentence of the article. as of right now it's in the sixth paragraph BlooTannery (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I meant. It’s complicated technically as to whether the “felon” part should be in the first sentence. Community consensus goes before personal opinion. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, wouldn't it be a case for any and every article, on Wikipedia, related to an individual that was convicted?

Usually, the current format is: "So-n-So (born mm-dd-yyy) is a [former] blah-blah-blah and convicted felon.[...]" – right in the first sentence of their introductory article, besides the other details related to their conviction felony.

Might want to take it into consideration, consensus or not... 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I get that, but right now there is a RfC open.I have no idea what else to say besides the community is having a discussion about it. I’m not arguing about it here. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He's the first US President in history, former or otherwise, to be convicted of a felony. If that isn't first sentence material, it is at least first paragraph. 188.26.221.177 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT complicated. He should be treated like anyone else. He was found guilty of felonies by a jury of his peers, hence he IS a convicted felon. 104.229.233.192 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph says that already. The disagreement is whether or not it should be in the first sentence. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican but it should be in the first paragraph, as he is the first former President to be criminally convicted of felonies. Aridantassadar (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to express that opinion in the section above, then! Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial.[4] --Tataral (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The way it`s written now is just plain bad writing..something along the lines of he is the only president to be convicted of 34 charges involving Stormy Daniels which implies other presidents may have been convicted of other felonies..or not...he is the only president to have been convicted of a felony period which is how it should read Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (6)

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.

---

It should have "convicted felon" added to his biographical information at the top of the page. 2601:249:1980:B2C0:D2A4:F67D:EF8E:946F (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, if you mean the first sentence, there is an RFC on that above. If you mean first paragraph, I'd say you should get consensus first. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: While it's fair to deny the request, it's pretty obvious what the request is, so don't see why you're posting that template response. Master of Time (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear where, which is why the request is too ambiguous right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Some people (especially IPs who have small edit counts) may not know what an RfC is. Clarification helps. :) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:53, 30 May 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.

Criminal information infobox template

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.

---

At what point will the Criminal Information infobox template be added? There is long precedent to have that template added to the infobox of convicted criminals and this case would be no different. At this point we have perfectly valid information to include in the "Criminal Status", "Convictions", and the "Criminal Penalty" field would be something to the effect of "awaiting sentencing July 11, 2024". 142.162.242.228 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI those fields are currently in the infobox, but they don't display because there Politician infobox doesn't accept them. Unfortunately I'm on mobile and can't fix it at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They’re accepted on the page for George Santos and R. Budd Dwyer. MountainDew20 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I added this infobox in the 'Investigations' 'Hush money' section a few hours ago.SandRand97 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 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.

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)

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)

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)

Convicted felon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This needs to be added to the first paragraph, tgis site has a long long standing tradition of being unbiased why is this case any different also criminal status needs to be added to the box’s

I am a trump supporter but the integrity of this site is more important then anyone’s feelings John Bois (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but there’s already an ongoing discussion on this in the section, “RfC on use of ‘convicted felon’ in first sentence”. Opportunity Rover (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Funny though it is, it's not really a major defining moment of his life. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 31 May 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.

Restore deleted categories

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.

---

Please add the following categories back into the article. They were removed as "irrelevant" and "redundant", but they are most definitely not. [[Category:21st-century American criminals]] [[Category:New York (state) politicians convicted of crimes]] [[Category:American politicians convicted of fraud]] 66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts and is officially now a convicted felon. 216.49.139.138 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 10:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@216.49.139.138, that fact is already discussed in the article. Do you have a specific edit request? TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (2)

Personal Details, Penalty, capitalize the "J" in Judge ConvincedQuaker (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 DoneJFVoll (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (3)

Add at the end of the first section: He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, but not convicted in the Senate. He is the only US president convicted of felony offenses, 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was defeated by Joseph Biden in the 2020 election, but did not concede; he fought the result in court and the public square, citing election fraud. His allegations were never proven. 2600:4809:8812:C400:B477:FA0E:13C8:ABF (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:05, 31 May 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (4)

Add to this Bio. Only president to br convicted of a felony and is an adjudicated rapist. 2600:100B:B03A:6082:356F:51B8:98D8:C1B1 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) That is fair and should not be in the first sentence but in the first paragraph would be ok.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are simple, straightforward facts.

If this was an article on, say, Earth's atmosphere, there is no need to seek consensus before adding: "The sky is blue."

These key facts should have been added yesterday. The fact that it is not stated in Paragraph 1 is indication that Wikipedia is broken. --Concord19 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

These key facts have been added to the lead section, which has a whole paragraph relating to Trump's legal issues, including the facts that he's been convicted of falsifying records and that he's been found liable for sexual abuse. I don't think there's any real controversy here about whether these things are true, or whether they're significant. The question currently being discussed is whether the felony conviction is significant enough to justify being placed in the first paragraph. I think it is, and I hope the consensus will reflect that. But I also think there are valid points being made against it, by people who are not partisan hacks, in the RfC discussion above. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 18:01, 31 May 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)

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)

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)

"Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee..."

The statement from the lede that "Trump won" in 2016 needs to be revised.

The full gravity of yesterday's Guilty verdict includes this new fact, as has now been determined in a court of law, that Trump had been declared winner after FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL activity had corrupted the 2016 Election. The justification for Felony upgrade was unlawful influence of the 2016 presidential election, crimes at both the state and federal level.

Donald Trump was declared winner only after he committed criminal election fraud. At the very minimum, any and every assertion that he "won" needs to be marked with an asterisk. --Concord19 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, as his victory has not been overturned, and until it has he remains the winner. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You are not understanding the needed change that has been flagged here. Nothing was said about any election having been overturned.

The point stands:

INCOMPLETE info is being presented to state that "Trump won", and leave it at that, without any qualifications. He was declared the winner after having committed crimes. Crimes done with the specific intent of influencing the election.

Incomplete info is bad info. --Concord19 (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, its not incomplete until his victory is overturned he won, simple as that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your contentions are what would go in a partisan op-ed. This is not for an encyclopedia. ~~~ Cecropia (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing partisan whatsoever in what has been flagged here. It is a very simple issue:

Was 2016 a free and fair election?

The jury yesterday determined that crimes were a key part of it. Therefore, 2016 was NOT free and fair. This is a simple fact that needs to be noted. --Concord19 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"...a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election..."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

That's just one of many references. --Concord19 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK so by how much did this make a difference, by how many points would he have lost if this was made public? Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I myself have never seen any attempt to quantify the impact.

The FACT of what the jury determined yesterday was that crimes were committed before Nov 8, 2016. And this is the salient info that will be proper to present in our article whenever it states "Trump won".

That is the extent of the Edit Request being presented here. It may be possible that in the future, a reliable source will give the specifics you are asking. --Concord19 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

THis has nothing to do with whether he would still have won or not, this is wp:or. We mention this court case, this verdict, that is all we can do, not assume it would have had any impact. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)