Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article

I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So he was a record holder until someone beat him, unsure we need that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit trivial here. The article is already excessively long, and adding low-importance information to it at this time seems like a bad use of space. --Jayron32 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Roamed the earth nigh on four score" . Grassley has roamed the earth nigh on four score and ten, and Iowans reelected him to a six-year term in the Senate last year. If Trump wins in 2024 — we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (or jump off it). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to include, as it's not a notable fact and doesn't really say anything about his fitness for office. It was notable, for example, when Kamala was elected vice president, and even more notable when Obama was elected president, because the first black president and the first female and black vice president are relevant to not only why they were elected but the broader context of their post-election policy and the like. Trump's age isn't why he was elected, and isn't really relevant to anything about him. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd exclude this here, and include it in the 2024 campaign article (and the articles on Trump and Biden's respective campaigns), iff age turns into a major issue of the campaign. There's just far too much to say in the main BLPs. DFlhb (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many inaccuracies in this to give it credibility 2601:340:4201:93A0:BD3E:2FA6:136F:1B77 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a notable topic. It needs to be somewhere in the article, probably in the "2016 campaign" section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me, and the source you cited is an opinion piece with some stats on oldest and youngest to take office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not opinion pieces:

• https://www.insider.com/donald-trump-oldest-president-us-history-2016-11
• https://www.ajc.com/news/national/donald-trump-the-oldest-president-elect-history/h7ipsR6rRHXGEbjcY3LnWP/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still stats trivia, he's no longer the oldest president-elect to take office, and this is still low-importance information that seems like a bad use of space, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is being edit-warred back into the article, with no resolution of the concern voiced by at least two editors that it is trivia. Somebody needs to remove it pending any consensus to include. WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it is trivial. It's covered by high quality reliable sources including NPR, CBS, NYT, etc.: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] I have added these sources to the content, and removed the "ronald reagan" part. If someone would like to add that it was later surpassed by Biden's election, I would be fine with including that as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. And meanwhile, please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from telling me how to argue my own points. I think I can do that quite well on my own, thanks. I made an argument along WP:RSUW and WP:DUE. I then linked to 8 sources out of many which mention this fact when discussing Trump's election. That my argument is not convincing to you is honestly not very important to me. I will state my reasoning, and if you disagree with it, that is your purview. Consensus will win out, and I will be happy with that consensus if and when it does. At the moment, I'm not sure you do have consensus on your side either. I would personally close this (if I were in a position to do so) as "no con". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an RFC for this? And if there is no consensus in the RFC, then it would go back to the way it was originally (which I think is excluding this)? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think an RFC would be unnecessary. But if others would like to stonewall and exclude these 18 words without any interest in compromise, then yes it may become necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, was it a topic of conversation covered in many multiple independent reliable sources at that time? If it was, then it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. That's the nature of WP:DUE. I don't consider whether it is "right now" included at that page very relevant, given that the encyclopedia is ever-changing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking about how 'age' was brought up, during the 1984 presidential debates, between Reagan & Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I do think it was a common criticism of Reagan: [9], (so much so that an American Experience PBS documentary covered this exact topic in an hour-long documentary in 2011. And in many news pieces both contemporary and modern: [10][11][12] That is the essence of staying power, that it was still relevant enough for PBS to devote an hour to it 27 years later. So I would overall agree at a glance, that it is DUE for that page and likely DUE here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the criterion we use to evaluate NPOV due weight. "At that time" is exactly what we do not use. On the biography of a notable individual we give weight to what is of lasting significance. Reagan's age has had some lasting significance due to his incipient senility while in office. Trump's age is the least of his noteworthy achievements. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's being the oldest elected at that time has continued to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources now in 2022/2023. See those linked above: [13][14][15][16] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are more and more "old" folks due to the longer lives of boomer and subsequent generations. There will therefore be a succession of oldest presidents now and in the future. It's trivia unrelated to anything essential about the individuals. Biden apparently suffers from spinal stenosis, Trump from baldness. These are common and unremarkable aging effects widely seen in the population. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all of the above appears to be your opinion, but it isn't what our highest quality RSes find notable enough to cover. They have repeatedly covered Trump and Biden's age, as a notable subject worthy of newsreader attention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reliable sources cover a wide range of views. If in doubt of the importance of a topic that is covered in many reliable sources, it's better to err on the side of inclusion unless it violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In general Wikipedia editors are not qualified to decide what subjects are important and which are not if they are covered in reliable sources. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above hatting, there are multiple RSes which support the statement that 'Trump and Biden have both been accused of senility/old age.': Axios · The Guardian · PsychologyToday · USAToday · The GLP · Newsweek · WaPo · NYT · NBC · Alzheimers UK · Snopes · Dallas News. It isn't a BLP violation to simply state that such accusations have been made. Such statements also do not require MEDRS unless they are asserting the validity of the claims, which no one appears to have done here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you decided to dive into the cess pool after all. WP is not a newspaper. We don't mention Trump's hair, whatever that shiny stuff on his face is, or his verbal garbling, either, and they have all received plenty of coverage in RS. It's a trivial statistic that may have a place in a shorter article but not in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the effects of age are discussed by reliable sources:

• This has been discussed by reliable sources: [17] [18] for example. This is a place for discussing how to make the article accurate, not a place for removing people's comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is trivial. Given the general increase in longevity in the USA, it is inevitable that successive presidents will more or less tend to be the oldest. This article should not be a baseball card with statistics about age and firsts.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion with Bob K31416 (permalink), I would like to try for a consensus on what I believe is the best way to handle bias complaints at this article. There were discussions about this a couple of years ago, but no explicit consensus. I figured the benefits were obvious enough that it would just "catch on", but I was apparently mistaken.

The key elements of this method are:

• Instead of dismissively removing a bias complaint, inform the reader respectfully and give them time to read that.
• Otherwise, avoid wasting editor time repetitively fielding complaints from readers who don't understand Wikipedia policy.

The method is as follows:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
• Close the discussion using {{archive top}}/bot.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

If we can reach a consensus on this, I will create a new item in the consensus list. If not, I will drop the issue and abandon the method. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the unfortunate fact that editors on all pages end up in little debates, policy scolding, etc on vague complaints and unspecific edit requests, I think we need to be able to do what we do everywhere else -- which is sometimes to delete or archive such posts. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of Wikipedia's image, a good-faith complaint deserves a respectful reply. Not all complaints are in good faith, but this one was. Ignorance is not bad faith, and Wikipedia's policies are somewhat counterintuitive. Try to imagine yourself on the outside looking in. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the same telltale language appears over and over, it's most likely somebody who's been hanging out and repeating what they see in a chat room or something. But in the recent one, there was a kind reply and the archiving was to prevent an extended discussion. I do however see that we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it'll cut down drive-by editors/ips, complaints. Then indeed, close & archive. If an editor chooses to go the RFC route? then that's (of course) a different situation. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lke the idea, but preemptive closing of discussions without giving the editor a chance to respond (I assume that's what's being proposed) just seems unfair. At the very least, asking the editor to reword the statement to comply with what is present on the Bias page, giving them 24 hours, then closing the discussion seems reasonable to me. Cessaune [talk] 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents them from starting a new and better discussion after reading the response page, and I think that should be obvious to them. In fact, the response page makes that abundantly clear beginning with Any user, including you.... But in all my years at this article I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement. They simply don't care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means, exactly (nor would I, probably). That suggests that your suggestion would merely add unnecessary complication to the process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this is irrelevant. It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours, and, as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. To not give a user that time at all isn't fair, regardless of whether or not the editor simply [doesn't] care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means. I went and looked through policies, when I made my first edits here, so when you say I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement—I tried to in the past, and continue to try to now. I definitely know I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all if someone had shut down my first Trump talk page contribution without even giving me a chance to reply.

Also, I made changes to the Bias page, and included a bunch of relevant policies (WP:AGF, WP:DGF, WP:CIVILITY, WP:RSP). We can be more specific and encouraging to motivate these newcomers to actually create those specific, policy-based improvements that we speak of, which was the whole point of my edits, and should be the whole point of the bias page. Our words should also reflect that when pointing the editor towards the bias page. Cessaune [talk] 00:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours Not so much disruptive as a waste of time. Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested (and they aren't, as I said). We're here to work on this article, not to educate readers who have no interest in being educated. Our responsibility ends after we point them to the policy pages.

as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. Exactly right, and this method gives them 24 hours to read the reply. If that wasn't considered enough time, consensus 13 wouldn't read as it does.

Your proposed changes to the response page are a separate and independent issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested—I'm only suggesting two sentences or so. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three sentences, pursuant to step 1 of the proposed method. The rest is on the response page and would be redundant (and incomplete) within the thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I would do it:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
• Wait at least 24 hours.
• Close the discussion.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

In an ideal world, I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. My issue with an immediate close is that, for someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia policy, closing a thread they started before even giving them a chance to reply fully hinders their want to restate anything. Closing someone's thread immediately also may have more negative consequences: people may start a new thread, claiming that we are censoring/silencing their opinions. There is little downside to simply waiting 24 hours, and, if needed, we can add a clause so that if the conversation starts heading south, it can be closed before the 24-hour period. Cessaune [talk] 02:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. By all means, feel free to change "welcome to" to "encouraged to" on the response page. The whole point is that anything that needs to be said can be said on that page, and the thread itself should be kept to little more than is required to point them to it. In the example above, I added just a little extra just because that's how I roll. It wouldn't be a requirement under my method. Otherwise, I still think your extra steps add unnecessary complication, but that consensus would be better than none. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 24-hr waiting period, also suffices. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus item 13 is a good policy, and I've been adhering to it, although on occasion my responses may have been less diplomatic than they could have been. The 24-hour waiting period before archiving the closed discussion probably is a sufficient amount of time for the complainant to see the response to their complaint since in all likelyhood they'll be watching the page for it. It may be a good idea, though, to leave it on the talk page for a longer period (a week?), for other potential complainants to see and be deterred. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any indication that other potential complainants read existing discussions before complaining. Your suggestion would result in three different retention periods: (A week?) for bias complaints, 24 hours for other closed discussions per #13, and 14 days for everything else (automated archival). Again, can we avoid over-complicating things? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In consensus item 13, the discussion [19] that the 24 hour time was based on, was closed with the following statement. "Consensus to keep bot archive at 7 days and allow manual archiving of formally closed threads after 24 hours." The term "formally closed" means that there was a request made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. The statement of consensus item 13 improperly generalized "formally closed" to "closed" without consensus. With that in mind, the 24 hour rule for archiving in the case considered here would be new. So what is the argument for archiving after only 24 hours a summarily closed discussion, not a formally closed discussion, consisting of only two messages? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't see any indication that the closer used your interpretation of "formally closed" — even if you could point to a guideline that supports your interpretation. More likely, he was simply contrasting the use of {{archive top}}/bot to {{collapse top}}/bot, the latter being more common at that time than it is these days at this article. Collapse is not closure, but it was being used that way a lot.

The argument for 24 hours is that it's ample time for the OP to read the reply, if the OP is interested in reading it. (It's 24 hours after the close, not 24 hours after the opening comment, just to be clear.) It's a concession being asked of the editors who would prefer to shoot on sight, without acknowledgement or reply, as we saw the other day. Maybe you could meet them halfway.

It is not unimportant that item 13 has gone unchanged since Nov 2019 without a challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can mostly agree, that it can be a tricky situation to handle. We must take caution, not to be seen as 'anti-Trump', when shutting down discussions. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the sentiment, but I think we should avoid the phrase "shutting down discussions". We're not shutting down discussions, which is anathema at Wikipedia, but rather nipping them in the bud before they get started. We're shutting down pointless threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia speaks of "freedom of discussion", I do not believe we have uninformed readers in mind. Discussion is part of Wikipedia editing, and Wikipedia editing is best left to Wikipedia editors, who have invested considerable time and energy in learning policy and common practice. It takes years to grasp a lot of this stuff, and non-editing readers have nothing useful to say regarding this article's neutrality. That's true whether they love Trump or despise him, and we do see complaints that the article is not tough enough on him. Trump haters want us to use the words "lies" or "liar", and that's prohibited by consensus 22, for example.

It's not unlike using representative government, instead of deciding every issue by popular referendum. Common citizens are not qualified to govern, and the world has known this for thousands of years. (Our governments may not be qualified to govern, either, but that's a separate issue.) The analogy ends when you recognize that we're not elected representatives, but it's a useful one as far it goes. Per policy, unlike our governments, we're not supposed to represent the public. We have no constituents except reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is uninformed until, well, they're not. Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. To give editors no time to discuss under the pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time is antithetical to the entire point of Wikipedia. Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. Cessaune [talk] 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. So Wikipedia editors become editors so they can engage in discussions with non-editing readers? I was not aware of that. Are they trying to educate the population about Wikipedia policies? If not, they're violating WP:NOTFORUM. And neither is good.

pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time Sorry, no. The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: It is pointless and does waste editor time. No reader bias complaint has ever resulted in a change to the article. If that's not a waste of time, I don't know what is. If an editor sees the bias complaint and it stimulates him or her to think of a "specific, policy-based" suggestion, no problem — he or she may start a new thread about it. There's no benefit to doing it in the complaint thread.

Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. I won't argue that point, but we are not denying them that chance. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread, this time "specific, policy-based". The time required to start a new thread will be insignificant compared to the time required to read the policy and even attempt to put together something "specific, policy-based". As I've said previously, we have yet to see a complaining reader come back with something "specific, policy-based". The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: They have nothing further to say. But if they do, they may — within policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something I would like to say: editors are not required to respond to anything. The fact that discussion is going on doesn't mean that you have to put your $0.02 in, and, if you do, that's a personal limitation. Timesink arguments have always struck me as dumb: Since I'm addicted to doing something, rather than avoiding that thing, no one else should be able to do it, to help me avoid doing it, because my time can be spent elsewhere. Yes, editors might, in their pursuit of one topic, forget/ignore another one, but the truth is, at least on this page, that doesn't happen often, except in the case of RfCs overshadowing smaller issues. Two, three, sometimes four separate discussions take place simultaneously on this page all the time. As long as we all generally agree to avoid WP:FORUM situations (something that essentially all editors on this page are guilty of) we should be fine on a timesink level.

My main point is that the path to becoming a good editor generally requires one to fail. A lot. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread—my belief is that asking them to start a new thread with a new question has the effect, unintended or not, to stifle discussion completely.

Now, it is entirely fair to say that people who are unwilling to take the time to understand policy are not worth editor time. However, I enjoy giving people the benefit of the doubt. Being unwilling to reasearch policy is perhaps an unintended consequence of having so much policy to research. It is much easier to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by observing policy in action, especially observing discussions about the implications or actual meanings.

Basically, the system as it stands now sets up users to fail. Guiding users to intentionally vaguely defined guidelines such as MOS:LEADCITE or MOS:OVERLINK simply serves to confuse, and the broader pillar policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, despite seeming simple on a surface-level, are so complex and massive, and require such an extensive knowledge of the secondary and tertiary policies around them, that it is almost unfair IMO to say 'go read this and come back with something coherent.'

In addition, the Bias page, and consensus item 13, are essentially formalities, put up as if to pretend that we care about these users' opinions. We don't. And that's sad, at least to me.

This is why I say that Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. In the same thread, I might add. While the closing of one thread and the opening of another might seem trivial to one who understands that the implications of doing so are next to nothing, it is not the same to a good faith user who doesn't understand it. Instantly shutting down their good faith opinions (because that's how closing is perceived when you aren't an established editor) disincentivizes new good faith and policy-based opinions.

Now, all this being said, if it's not good faith, everything above is irrelevant. Cessaune [talk] 05:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR is "only" an "explanatory essay", but you see it come up regularly anyway at places like ANI. It's not some obscure thing that nobody subscribes to. If we apply it to editors, why are non-editing readers exempt? Q.E. effin D. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CIR is only applied after all other options have been exhuasted, and it applies only to repeated mistakes, not a singular one. You cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone after a singular interaction, and for Wikipedia's purposes, you cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone even after an arbitrarily high number of interactions, unless it's obvious they aren't acting in good faith (vandalism, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc.) or it's a language barrier thing. Cessaune [talk] 07:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then they can demonstrate their competence by opening a new thread with something "specific, policy-based". If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board. In my opinion, the article would benefit from more people on the Trump side who know the policy and are prepared to comply with it and use it. Once on board, it will be worth more-experienced editors' time to help them along. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that users are necessarily 'competent until proven otherwise', but that competence is acquired. It's not about demonstrating competence, it's about becoming competent in and of itself. Which, again, circles back to my main point: pointing people to policies and guidelines doesn't work that well if the goal is to actually foster good conversation and to have people actually start new threads that ask specific, policy-based questions—but, as I said before, I believe the Bias page and consensus item 13 are not intended to actually foster good conversation, but to stop bad conversation under the guise of fostering good conversation, which is a tactic I despise.

Secondly, the path to becoming a Wikipedia editor is not so simple. I'm only an editor because I played so much random article Wikipedia game with friends that I began to optimize links and fix grammar mistakes at big articles to gain an unseen advantage. If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board—becoming an editor is, at least in my limited experince, a gradual process that requires failure. To become an editor by saying "hey, I want to edit, time to read up on the rules to figure out what I should and shouldn't do"—that almost delves into a Citizendium or Nupedia-type formality, one that Wikipedia is directly against. This is why I believe it's important to actually help people instead of telling people to do stuff, and then claiming that we tried to help but they were unwilling to listen, when, in reality, we didn't really try to help at all. Cessaune [talk] 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should sign up as a mentor for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user or contribute at WP:TEAHOUSE. Those are places where editors have signed up to spend significant amounts of their time and energy helping uninformed people along. I didn't sign up for that, I find your arguments unconvincing, and you can't dictate that I must do that. There's a time and place for almost everything. I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization—can you clarify the meaning of this? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to many, organization is synonymous with bureaucracy. To say, "If you need this kind of help, go here" seems to them like imposing an undue burden. To them, any limits on what can be said in any particular venue, per its purpose and mission, are contrary to some sacred, lofty Wikipedia principle. To them, such limits hinder the free exchange of ideas, and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. Open range is good and barbed wire fences are evil. My brain doesn't work that way.

The purpose and mission of an article talk page are to work on the article. "Helping" others with policy is limited to what's necessary to protect that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'd advocate for a more active role, but I guess we've just gotta agree to disagree. Cessaune [talk] 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

easier and obvious solution is if there is only one disruptive user who keeps reverting obvious closes, then remove them from the topic area. ValarianB (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus list for a reason, so you and SPECIFICO don't get to arbitrarily decide when to archive, and OneClickArchiving without abiding by the 24 hour closure period isn't allowed at all. Of course, Bob probably should've brought the issues to the talk page, but, per consensus, he was in the right. Cessaune [talk] 13:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bob was not in the right, and his reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico. to the point where if it was me, I would be filing harassment and wiki-hounding charges. if SPAs and IPs come to this talk page with blatantly loaded and inflammatory "this is biased, remove it now!" posts, I will freely and cheerfully remove them, invoking WP:IAR if necessary. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob is only in the right per consensus item 13, unless there is something I am missing about Bob's reverts. Please point my mistakes out if needed.

I agree that Bob's edits undermine SPECIFICO and your good faith edits. However, my point above still stands. The consensus says we have to do something, so we do it, and if Bob is abiding by consensus, then a topic ban is entirely unwarranted. Also, SPECIFICO is basically the only person who archives in such a way. To claim that [Bob's] reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico is a true statement, but a statement that misses the bigger picture. Cessaune [talk] 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the bit about only me is true. Anyway, it's beside the point. Bob's entire record speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily only you, but mostly you. Cessaune [talk] 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is often code for "fuck consensus". It is not some kind of trump card that immunizes an edit from challenge. Thankfully, an edit against consensus will be reverted, and a re-revert will be actionable disruption. I don't use IAR, never saw a need for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The monkey under the bed

The real problem (the monkey hiding under the bed, the lizard in the closet, etc.) is WP editors who pile on and use such inquiries -- good faith or not, well-formulated or not, specific or vague -- as an opportunity for a late-night college dorm debate. Once a reply has been given, WP editors need to step back and not continue to reply to OP, at least until OP has responded with some new addition. So I suggest, when we respond the first responder should use the green checkmark to show the issue has been addressed. And everyone else needs to start a new thread if they are inspired to share their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, avoid WP:FORUM situations. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given how often I have had to deal with "Ahh no one has replied in 1 hour to my latest post, I have consensus" scenarios I am not sure that will achieve the aim of stopping forum debate. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's the old 'last word' approach. An editor will keep arguing their point, with the hope that those who oppose them, will eventually stop answering them. Then, the editor takes the silent treatment as a sign of consensus. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about anti-Trumpers?

What about unspecific bias complaints from anti-Trumpers? These complaints are less common than the other kind, but they do occur and should not be given greater consideration merely because they are anti-Trump. To prevent them from being given greater consideration, they need to be covered by any consensus arising from this discussion.

Almost all of the response page applies equally whether they are pro- or anti-Trump. The last sentence of the second paragraph does not: Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that.

Should there be a separate response page for the anti-Trumpers, or will the existing one suffice — possibly with a slightly different reply in the thread? Or, should the existing response page be modified so that it works equally well for both camps? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed "must reflect" to "reflects". Other than that, I think "biased towards/against" in the FAQ and the response page suffice. I don't remember any unspecific complaints that the page is too positive towards Trump (then again, maybe I'm blind on that eye), just specific requests wanting his latest outrageous toots, running tallies of the lawsuits, etc. mentioned. Can you point out one or two? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the odd comment in regards to we need to be more negative about him, they also get short shift. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close this and revert to status quo? Cessaune [talk] 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Handling bias complaints

The discussion has been open for 25 days and has been quiet for 15 days (22 days if you count only the first two subsections). The time for new ideas and back-and-forth debate is past, and I'm calling for a !vote. I recommend and request that you read the discussion before !voting here; it is not overly long, and I believe it has a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio.

The discussion yielded three alternative methods, with none of them receiving significantly more support than the others. If you prefer some other solution or approach, you have missed your opportunity to argue for it. Please participate in discussions of topics you care about.

If you can't support any of the options 1 through 3, please !vote 0.

0 — No change to the status quo; no new item in the consensus list. Absence of a consensus, with the resulting continued disruption, is preferable to any of the following options.

1 — Mandruss.

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.

2 — Space4Time3Continuum2x — Same as 1, but with a longer wait period.

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 more than 24 hours (a week?).
4. Manually archive the thread. Withdrawing the suggestion, don't want to complicate things. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 — Cessaune — Two wait periods.

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
2. Wait at least 24 hours.
3. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
4. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
5. Manually archive the thread.

―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 per discussion. Best balance between professionalism and productive use of editor time. Strong oppose to 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 As it will save a lot of time, and most of these never really go anywhere anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. 99% of the time, such complaints aren't backed by RS or an understanding of policy and will go nowhere anyway, so cut to the chase and end it. They can start another thread if they want. If they have learned something from reading the "Response to claims....", maybe their next attempt will be worth dealing with more thoroughly that how we usually deal with trolls. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1, per Mandruss, Slatersteven, and Valjean. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural objection or, alternatively, 3: First, I'm a bit dubious of the set up of this survey. If you prefer some other solution or approach, you have missed your opportunity to argue for it.? Says who? Or, perhaps more accurately, says what policy? I understand the desire to streamline discussions, but as far as I'm concerned that kind of forced restriction might invalidate any consensus that's reached here. It appears to me that no consensus that emerged above, so now the solution is, evidently, to restrict the options, but, having reviewed that prior discussion, even the possibility of restriction wasn't discussed in advance. (And keep in mind that, though RFC's are generally preceded by RFCBEFOREs, there's no policy that says a user can't respond to an RFC with an alternative suggestion.)
  Second, I assume this approach would only apply to generic claims of bias. But, with the instant-close approach, what's the review process? If the OP disagrees with the closing editor, would the OP be allowed to revert the close and explain why? If so, would the same editor that first closed the discussion be allowed to claim, "Well my opinion counts for more than yours" and re-close the discussion? (A Wikipedia:Equality issue?) Or would a third-party editor have to agree? And, of course, if the OP isn't allowed to revert ... don't you still have the issue of the closing editor being allowed to claim "my opinion matters more" by concluding the OP's complaint is meritless and too generic, and not even allowing the OP to respond? Perhaps, as an alternative to reverting, the OP would be expected to modify a closed section ... or maybe visit the user talk pages of other editors and ask them to revert the closing editor? As I see it, there are way too many unanswered questions here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I call overthink. We're not talking about the typical discussion among Wikipedia editors who have a clue about policy, so the normal rules and principles don't apply. As stated in the discussion, the OP or any editor is free to start a separate thread with anything "specific, policy-based". This is certainly within local discretion; we don't need a policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So if the OP editor disagrees that his or her claim of bias was too generic or not policy supported ... the process for review is to start a new thread, which might also be instantaneously closed by the same editor who instantaneously closed the prior thread?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you are too new at this article to know what these complaints always look like. They are invariably general and unspecific, just like this one was. If the OP did come back with a reasonable attempt at something "specific, policy based", which has never happened, that would not be closed under this consensus. Any new consensus item will make this adequately clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll let other editors chip in—but my concern is that you're making a rule for easy cases but ignoring the effect of that rule on edge cases. I think @Cessaune:'s approach makes more room for the edge cases while only trivially slowing down the process.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When we see our first edge case, your argument will begin to have some merit. At this point, you are countering empirical evidence with hypotheticals. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that the discussion on @Bob K31416:'s talk page chiefly concerned whether Bob was right to revert a close of talk section started by another user. Do any of these proposals actually speak to that question? (As I see it, no.)--Jerome Frank Disciple Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's a whole article (based on almost 70 reliable sources) and category, it looks like the majority of editors involved don't consider this redundant, that there is precedent for mentioning this, and that this forms a significant part of Trump's notability and impact on politics and public discourse (including before, during, and after his presidency), therefore meeting WP:SUSTAINED.

To name but two, his involvement as the figurehead of the birther movement is often described as the harbinger of his presidency and now going into the next election reports indicate roughly 70% of Republicans believe Trump's big lie. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Jayron32 14:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you proposing changing, "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." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."?

If that is your proposal, I would oppose it as I do not think that conveys enough context and nuance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and how you've linked to the article is preferable and directs to the context, but more than that there's a section devoted to it.
It isn't being used as a negative attack term by the way, he's undoubtedly the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the world. If such a term is appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, it may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic.
Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it would need to be mentioned in the lede sentence when it's already mentioned in the lede section. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the lead (not lede) says that "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." We have many RS describing the theories he promoted but are the majority of them saying he's a conspiracy theorist? Recent RS: PBS—embracing and amplifying false fringe QAnon conspiracy theory, museJHU—conspiracy theory after Trump, CNN—has been a conspiracy theorist for years, FactCheck.org—espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, VOA—moving closer to QAnon conspiracy, TIME—weaponized conspiracy theories, Atlantic—Trump needs conspiracy theories for political and personal ends, AP—Donald Trump is overtly embracing QAnon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could these sources be added together with a reference like ref. 4 on the Marjorie Taylor Green article? GhulamIslam (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist in the body because RS don’t call him that, so we can’t call him that in the lead. (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump doesn’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist, either, and I don’t know that the one-sentence lead of that article is correct about Trump having created any of the conspiracy theories the article lists.) RS say that pushing conspiracy theories is one of Trump’s patterns of behavior. He uses them as long as he thinks they’re useful, and moves on to the next one when they appear to have outlived their usefulness. Promoting—check, amplifying—check, but only one RS, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, calls Trump a conspiracy theorist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is an executive. So, like most of that cohort, he doesn't really do anything. He causes actions to be effected by his staff and entourage. But sources attribute at least Stop the Steal directly to him. As to what's a conspiracy theory and what's a passing falsehood, the line is not always clear. Sometimes the incidental falsehoods come back as a recognizable refrain. In general, I think labels are too easily misunderstood and not encyclopedic. But I would agree with OP that some indication of the conspiracy theory content needs to be prominent up top. That's why I think we should consider ways to put it in a second lead sentence of the first paragraph or to elevate that and some related content to an extension of the first paragraph or swap of #4 above 2 and 3. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sourcing to indicate that this is currently the dominant mainstream description of him. Without that, it cannot be stated up top in his bio. We editors cannot make an inference from a collation of conspiracy theories he has promulgated or endorsed. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, we should consider swapping the third and second lead paragraph positions to put the more current significant part first. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the former, similarly to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Lindell's lead paragraphs, except "conspiracy theorist" would link to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph covers education and private business endeavors prior to the presidency. The third and fourth paragraphs are about Trump's election and presidency. I don't think it would be an improvement to move the second paragraph in between those two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already dealt with well enough in the third paragraph. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it should, IMO, be in the second paragraph. The life details are not significant relative to his official acts and the influence and visability of his current roles far exceeds his business and American silly-media presence. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm just opposed to the addition to the lede in the way the proposer suggests. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GhulamIslam: What do you think of swapping the positions of the second and third paragraphs? SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph doesn't seem as immediately important but swapping them confuses the chronology, I'd either leave it as it is or not include it in the lead. GhulamIslam (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree that the "pre-politics" details aren't significant. It led to the whole emoluments thing, which was pretty huge for a brief period (and which we mention in the body) and he was already notable decades ago for the 2nd paragraph stuff in contemporary sources. It also wouldn't make sense, since it would break the chronology — DFlhb (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sources treat his TV show or his business failures as being more significant than his presidency or ongoing role as a political leader. I also don't see a rationale for following chronology when we'll still have it high up in the lead position 3 and his prior life was so unimportant compared to his life in politics. Nor for that matter is the emoluments allegation among the most noteworthy things about his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current sources, sure, but not the decades of sourcing prior to that. Recentism in BLP leads is one of my pet peeves. I think MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL backs me up on that, and current practice across almost all BLP leads. (Emoluments are certainly not among the most noteworthy things, hence why it's not mentioned in the lead) — DFlhb (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we define recentism. Chronological order is more like a middle-school writing assignment. Not following why you raised emoluments initially. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing, and I see no benefit to going against that. If some readers lack the attention span to make it to the third paragraph, TikTok is thataway. I find our lead quite excellent, and it's the most scrutinised part of one of our most scrutinised articles; changing it would require quite an obvious consensus — DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing That is the part I don't understand or agree with. "Essential" is an absolute standard, and I don't think it's always required. Otherwise we'd start our articles with babies in the hospital. here is a counterexample. The manger doesn't even appear in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure this is one of the things he is most noted for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend excluding, fwiw. Keep in mind, that around this time next year, info in this BLP's body, will quite likely go through quite a few changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposals

What about just moving the first sentence of the third paragraph and making it the second sentence? "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." You don't need to follow it immediately with accusations of conspiracism, lying and racism since these positions already infer that. TFD (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, although Trump would probably support the move since he was and is running on all four. Populists, protectionists, isolationists, and nationalists may also be conspiracy theorists, liars, and racists or any combination thereof but that's not indicated by any of the terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that those 4 views do not imply or entail "conspiracy theorist, liar, racist" I think TFD provided the germ of a good suggestion, to wit: A minimal summary in the opening short paragraph before launching into the biographical array. I think we can find a satisfactory middle ground. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd oppose putting those in the first paragraph too, since threshold to put traits in the first paragraph is much higher (they must be definitional, i.e. labels that are frequently mentioned in passing every time his name is mentioned). Trump's "populism" is, at least per some sources, more of an electoral strategy than something he actually believes in. Not to mention the constant flip flops. None of those political positions are definitional; they're opportunistic. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the lies, conspiracy theories and pandering to racist views are definitional. I agree the other four are better understood as modalities to engage aggrieved voters. That's why it's important to put a concise indication of his modus operandi in the first paragraph. We have long acknowledged that RS erred for several years on the side of deference to Trump due to the stature of his office. RS have now acknowledged that error and recent narratives are very clear in emphasizing the core modalities, and -- as you say -- not defining him in terms of gross categories such as "populism" and "nationalism". SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is microphone, willing to amplify whatever his supporters views are & possibly what some independents' views are. That's the premise that I'm seeing, but I'll go along with whatever write up, the rest of you can work out. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, conspiracy theorist should not be in the first sentence of this article. His promotion of conspiracy theories has not been identified by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of Trump in the same way as politician, businessman, and media personality. Also, no, the second and third paragraphs of the lead should not be swapped in an attempt to give Trump has promoted conspiracy theories... more prominence or weight. Doing so would put the lead out of a rough chronological order and I reject the notion that his pre-political career is not important (see the reasons by DFlhb). Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an illogical comparison. It compares parameters from two different dimensions. Similarly, "businessman" is not a more defining characteristic than "human" "male" "two-legged" but we do not see those in the first sentence. So -- as you state -- conspiracy, lies, etc, is not "in the same way" as professional roles, but it describes most noteworthy characteristic of his behavior in all of those roles. Such clarification in a brief additional sentence would not violate chronological order. Forget about "populism" etc. which may indeed by empty words. The disregard for fact is described by RS as his core. For compact mentions of non-professional non-chronological content up top, there are many examples on WP, e.g. Jesse James Benito Mussolini John N. Mitchell Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anthony Weiner Joseph McCarthy Leona Helmsley. A short additional sentence in the first paragraph will not create disorder. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in the lead sentence. The lead sentence is usually used to describe the subject's profession(s), as it now does: "politician, media personality, and businessman". Descriptions of the most noteworthy behavioral characteristics - such as believing in and spreading conspiracy theories - belong later in the lead section. Exactly as our lead section currently does in the third paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. And I don't agree with swapping the second and third paragraphs, either. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think both of those are no longer proposed. What do you think about adding one sentence to the first paragraph that incorporates the characterization that's currently farther down, after the life chronology? It would not need to use "conspiracy theories", just something to describe his approach to politics and public life? SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I would oppose that. And it's against MOS. See MOS:OPENPARABIO. The first paragraph of a biography is often very short, often a single sentence as it is here. Here is what the opening paragraph is supposed to cover: Name and title, dates of birth and death, context (such as nationality), "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms," and possibly "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" That's the first paragraph. The remainder of the lead section - the later paragraphs - can go into biographical detail, what they have done or accomplished, and even what their most noteworthy opinions are. That is exactly what this article's lead section does and we should leave it alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I wish you were right about those ideas being "no longer proposed", but in the paragraph immediately below this one, the person who originally made this proposal makes it again, as if none of the preceding discussion had happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I took care to cite half a dozen counterexamples to the claims above that such content would violate the canons of the lead. There are hundreds more like those that briefly characterize the BLPerson in the opening paragraph. Particularly, it seems, when the individual's most significant features were recognized somewhat late- or mid-career. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist^[1] who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

According to the Collins English Dictionary, a conspiracy theorist is "someone who believes in or spreads conspiracy theories". As I've said before, if appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, such a term may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic." — How do you know they are unbiased? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we don't, but they're considered reliable and they're making the same inference. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone provides a wide list of reliable sources—an actual wide list of reliable sources (not the 8 or so above)—then let's talk. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs—since he's an active, extremely prominent politician, not only in America but to a limited extent worldwide, I would err very far on the side of caution. There is no real benefit to characterizing Trump as a conspiracy theorist in my mind (we have a page devoted to the conpiracy theories he has promoted, so if people want to, they can still find the relevant info), and as I see it, the potential negatives are so much greater than any potential benefit.

If the only benefit to calling Trump a conspiracy theorist is that it is a relevant characterization, I would most definitely advocate against this. Especially since any characterization of this sort could realistically have an impact as great or greater than the Seigenthaler incident. It's not an issue I think we as Wikipedans need to drag ourselves into, and, again, relevant info about it is present on multiple pages, including this one. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are only discussing where to locate content that is already in the lead. That comparison is off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought OP was advocating for a change—I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." I'm confused. Cessaune [talk] 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this section be updated? All the info is now out-of-date. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The criminal investigations mentioned are ongoing. The next hearing in the NY case he was indicted on isn't scheduled until December. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Just updated one item (Trump Org. CFO's conviction for tax fraud). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should add E Jean Carroll's suit against him [20] Swizzard (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged 81.77.149.7 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No finding of "guilt" has occurred. This content needs to be worded closely follwing RS. He has been found liable for damages relating to sexual assault and defamation. There has not been finding of "rape" and there is no criminal finding. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No as it wasn't a criminal trial. However, any of these phrases would be accurate: "Perpetrator of sexual assault and defamation" "Offender of sexual assault and defamation" "Liable for sexual misconduct and defamation" "Responsible for sexual assault and defamatory actions". Chicago god (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the two above. Guilty isn't the word as a criminal finding is absent. But, clearly WP:DUE with the correct language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in adding this source for it: ^[2] ––FormalDude (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add the reference to the lead. Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section. We put the references where the same material appears in the text. In this case, the claim is made and supported in the 2016 presidential campaign section, where it says "His campaign statements were often opaque and suggestive,[154] and a record number of them were false.[155][156][157] The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has.[158][159]" So the claim that his use of false statements is "unprecedented in modern politics" has five strong references in the body of the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia style, we do not cite references in the lead section—this is directly contradicted by MOS:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I think the citation is warranted. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus item 58 says this as well. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space4T, what's your objection? Cessaune [talk] 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t even noticed this thread right before the Trump verdict swamped this page. I agree with MelanieN. Also, no disrespect to McGranahan but I don’t see that an anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas is the kind of scholar and expert we want to cite, and cite prominently in the lead, on the unprecedented number and frequency of Trump's lies. The anthropology of lying, "understand[ing] lies and liars in their cultural, historical, and political context", "show[ing] the unexpected ways that community can form around lies" seems off-topic for Trump’s biography. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting: I think anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas seem to be two separate roles (i.e. they could be written "historian of Tibet and the Himalayas and an anthropologist"), based on the rest of the paragraph:

Welcome. I am an anthropologist and historian of Tibet and the Himalayas, and a professor at the University of Colorado. I conduct research, write, lecture, and teach. At any given time, I am probably working on one of the following projects: Tibet, British empire, and the Pangdatsang family; the CIA as an ethnographic subject; contemporary US empire; Trump, lies, racism, and political outrage; the self-immolations in Tibet; the Chushi Gangdrug resistance army; refugee citizenship in the Tibetan diaspora (Canada, France, India, Nepal, Switzerland, USA); and, anthropology as theoretical storytelling.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN's argument is centered on their belief that we don't cite references in the lead "per Wikipedia style", which is patently false. Tons and tons of articles cite even the most inane stuff (example). Per LEADCITE: Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source, but this is true only in some cases: ...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. When I read this, it seems to say to me that uncontroversial assertions in the lead don't necessarily need a citation, while any controversial assertions require one, regardless of whether the assertion is in the lead or not.

In Wikivoice, we treat a vague assertion (degree unprecedented) as a fact, when it is, in fact, an opinion. It's an opinion held by many people and backed up by evidence, but we don't characterize it as such. Essentially we're saying Trump's actions were X, Y, and Z instead of Trump's actions have been characterized as X, Y, and Z, as it would be on most other pages. We don't source the assertion, and I think this violates LEADCITE.

We can find a better source if that's an issue. Cessaune [talk] 16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pings. I took another look, and I find that I greatly understated the extent to which this claim is documented in the text. In addition to the "2016 presidential election" which I cited above, there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this article text. In fact, there is a whole subsection under "Public profile" called "False and misleading statements". Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead.

And in reply to Cessaune's objection to the word "unprecedented": "unprecedented" is not always a vague assertion or an opinion; it is often a statement of fact. Obama's election as the first Black president was unprecedented. Trump's TWO impeachments were unprecedented. Nancy Pelosi's election as the first woman Speaker of the House was unprecedented. These are not opinions. And neither is the incredible volume of "false and misleading" statements issued by Trump before, during, and since his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If a citation is needed in the lead, I would use one of the mainstream sources already in the text, rather than the assertion from a scholar who has such diverse and wide ranging claimed areas of expertise. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your statement that there are 35 other times when the words false, falsely or falsehood are used in this article strikes me as a SNYTHy interpretation of the text. Even if a million sources each cite completely different times in which Trump has lied/falsely asserted/mislead, we still wouldn't be able to directly say "to a degree unprecedented in American politics" based on those statements alone, so an argument that synthesizes information in this way is weak IMO. "Surely this is sufficient documentation in the body of the text not to need a citation in the lead"—That's not how it works. There is no count of citations in the body that will ever make up for a lack of citations in the lead when pertaining to controversial statements. Per LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead (emphasis not mine). I'm challenging it.

2) It is in no way controversial to say, in Wikivoice, that Obama's election as the first black president was unprecedented. It is a fact: the United States of America, thoughout its entire history, had never before elected a black president. This is notable. It is in no way controversial to say that, in Wikivoice, Trump's impeachments were unprecedented. Out of 43 presidents, 2 had been impeached. In less than four years, Trump doubled the number of presidential impeachments. This is, again, notable.

However, it is controversial to say in Wikivoice (and more importantly, without an inline citation) that Trump's falsehoods were so numerous that they were unprecedented. Sure, firehose of falsehood and all that, and it's obviously notable, but how many lies does it take for one to have made an unprecedented impact? One? A few? Nixon did it with a few.

How can we assert this so matter-of-factly without a source at all? If RSs report on this (they do), then fine, but who are we as Wikipedia editors to decide how many falsehoods it takes to attain the legendary status of "unprecedented"? 'It's in the body' is not an argument. I've pointed to LEADCITE three times. The body is irrelevant. The thing is, the vague threshold here is so loosely defined that I nearly object to the entire sentence, let alone the lack of citation. How can we just throw around words like this without citations? Surely I can't be the only one who sees something wrong with this. Cessaune [talk] 03:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cessaune: You may be interested in the discussion that resulted in this sentence. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it before. It doesn't really touch on the issue at hand. Sure, people talk about Wikivoice and stuff like that, but, for the most part, the arguments don't line up smoothly. Also, the old sentences were nasty. Ugh. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described... makes me want to gag. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cessaune, are you challenging the entire sentence or the part you quoted above, to a degree unprecedented in American politics? The local agreement on this page was to not use cites in the lead because pretty much every sentence has been flagged as wrong and/or controversial from at least once to more times than I can remember. You, FormalDude, supported the agreement until you didn’t, resulting in consensus item 58. So here we are again, deciding what to cite in the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Poor us, having to do our job as content curators and reliably source what we say. That comment of mine from over a year ago is not support for never having any citations in the lede, it's merely an explanation of why it doesn't need citations for everything. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also this MOS discussion: Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point. I counted more comments opposing than supporting lead cites. The "here" button links to this comment which, in turn, links to the DT talk page RfC. The discussion seems to have ended there, without a change to the MOS section whose first and second paragraph seem contradictory to me but what do I know. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, LEADCITE sucks, which is the cause of much contention. Thanks for pointing me to these discussions. I'm only challenging the lack of citation. Cessaune [talk] 12:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that important to you to have a citation, add it. But not the one proposed above. Add this one, which says "unprecedented" right in the headline: ^[1] It won't be necessary to add the whole reference, since it is already cited twice in the text; just add <ref name="finnegan"/> --Melanie

"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."

If this is true, Trump was correct. These are using old sources than may wrongly depict the reality. If it's not true, it also wrongly depicts the reality. Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific proposal, backed up by some new sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump was correct", in addition to being false in this case, is also an example of his having claimed he would accomplish dozens of feats on which he took no meaningful action. He continues that rhetorical approach to this day. In fact, the proportion of such predicitions that have "come true" is far less than the statistical expectation of successful outcomes for a random variable of relevant distribution. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source for you, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob. Zaathras (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point, but here's another source, December 21, 2020 — Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, your first source also contains the quote "Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right" which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same - "I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed" - neither credit Trump personally with anything: Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual process and so on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump pushed the effort personally. NYT April 29, 2020 [29], "President Trump is pressing his health officials to pursue a crash development program for a coronavirus vaccine that could be widely distributed by the beginning of next year, despite widespread skepticism that such an effort could succeed and considerable concern about the implications for safety." In an earlier statement by Pfizer April 9, 2020 [30]

• Potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020 subject to technical success of the development program and approval by regulatory authorities, and then rapidly scale up capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021.

• BioNTech will contribute multiple mRNA vaccine candidates as part of its BNT162 COVID-19 vaccine program, which are expected to enter human testing in April 2020

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, what the article says is out of context and gives the wrong impression. I don't know how much Trump was behind this but it seems like things that happen because of the executive branch in a presidency are usually mentioned on the president's article.

Also, I don't know what is meant by "Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob." These sources are from March 2020... a source from November 2020 is clearly better. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is in the section describing Trump and his administration's first response to the pandemic (downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, promote quack remedies), and this is the cited source for the sentence. “So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "All right, so you’re talking within a year," Trump said moments later. "A year to a year and a half," interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents. I've just amended our phrasing to a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Although Pfizer didn't accept US government money for R&D, it was a part of Operation Warp Speed^[31]. But that wasn't the point of mentioning the April 9 statement of Pfizer in my above message. The point was to give some of the background for Trump's April 29 position on having a vaccine for use by the end of the year. I agree with the opening message point that the article item is misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from your source: We also do not know exactly what happened behind the scenes at Pfizer, so we can’t definitively pinpoint the extent of any influence the US government had on its development timeline. In addition, it’s worth noting in response to Pence’s tweet that Pfizer’s partner on the coronavirus vaccine, German company BioNTech, received significant funding from the German government – and that Pfizer and BioNTech have purchase agreements with other countries in addition to the US. Still, three experts contacted by CNN said the US federal government likely played a significant role in the progress of the vaccine. (Another expert disagreed.) "Other countries" being the entire EU, for one thing. That's a lot of ifs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob all that has nothing to do with Trump. "Trump's position" is LOL funny. Trump does not have "positions", certainily not on organic chemistry. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to contradict that because it's true. However saying this in the first sentence without further commentary suggests that Trump was wrong. That was perfectly fine info in spring 2020, but now that we are looking back at the description there should be a less chronological description. See

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=5b7343ba1848
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/operation-warp-speed-trump-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-1.5806820
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/14/trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The point" was, we do not use old, outdated news articles. The notion that the former president was responsible for its success, or that it was even much of of a success at all, is debunked to today by more recent analysis, (The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed’), and...well, the former president himself - Trump’s effort to disavow Operation Warp Speed shows how far he’s fallen. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras Did you link to the wrong article? The page in your link 'The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed' is actually titled 'Operation Warp Speed Head Says Trump Administration Responsible For 90% Of Vaccine Rollout'.

Also, this sentence is sourced to a page from March 2020, so it IS an old, outdated news article. It would be better to use only sources from 2021-2023 when talking about vaccines. Before then, there was just predictions and speculation by various people, some of which ended up being wrong (for example, whoever said the vaccines would take 12-18 months ended up being wrong). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(User:Lights and freedom, You might consider acting on the first response to your opening message re proposal. If not, that's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Zaathras, The NY Post source that you used for the other link is considered unreliable by Wikipedia. [32] "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support inclusion of the 1 year remark - I think from the sources above and a quick lit review, the claim was made, is WP:DUE, and it should be mentioned. Edit 11:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I now see what is particularly being argued, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark (that Trump had a good or notable prediction here) is particularly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ... a little confused as to what's being discussed here.

So the article currently says:

Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.

It cites this March 2020 Politico article, but frankly the better source would be this May 2020 NBC News article, which says:

"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.

But I think the point Bob & Lights are making is that ... the vaccine did emerge within a year—he points to this November 2020 CNN article noting its upcoming rollout.

As I understand, Bob and Light think it should be noted that Trump was right, while SPECIFICO, Space, and Chaheel are saying that it shouldn't be noted because Trump wasn't responsible for the vaccine being completed in the year. Do I have that right?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm not a huge fan of the Politico article being cited for the proposition is that the "few months" comment Trump made was ... in the form of a question.

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "All right, so you’re talking within a year."

From my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion? Trump does not make statements because he thinks they are true or predictive. He speaks out of impulse and self-interest. That has nothing to do with vaccines, etc. This is a dead end. No consensus for this. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, what are you talking about? I didn't propose anything, I recapped the discussion and asked for clarification. "There's no consensus for me to ask for clarification"? Thanks for repeating "There's no consensus for this" twice. By the way, a talk page is where we often try to build consensus.

In terms of the discussion being "pointless" ... I understand you decided that. But you do not own this page. Both Bob & Light disagreed with your "ripe for closure" remark above, and I'm disagreeing with it, too. As I said, I don't believe the discussion is pointless, because, [f]rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we have no consensus for this, then the line should probably be removed. I would say my overview of the discussion now makes me think it likely should not be included, since it's main purpose is to be a dog whistle, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark is particularly WP:DUE, e.g. that secondary RSes have covered it as a unique or important declaration. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• IIRC, there was a Hungarian woman who spent over a decade working on mRNA vaccines whose research formed the basis for the COVID vaccines. She had a difficult time with funding in the US and had to move to Europe to finish her research. I can’t remember her name as no one talks about her. Frankly, I’m disgusted at any politician of any stripe taking any credit. O3000, Ret. (talk)

Katalin Karikó, VP of BioNTech, the company whose research wasn't funded through Warp Speed, from 2013 until October 2022, according to her LinkedIn page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove discussion of prediction. I can see the logic that "Trump said it would come out within a year, and the experts told him it would take at least twelve months, BUT THEN IT CAME OUT WITHIN A YEAR" wouldn't add much to the article and, I think, falsely imply some involvement by Trump. But it's also crazy to be like "Trump REPEATEDLY said it would come out within a year, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS TOLD HIM OTHERWISE. (But if you look around Wikipedia enough you'll find that it did, in fact, come out within a year.)" The thing is, these seem to have been relatively off the cuff predictions. What's the significance of him having guessed correctly? Why don't we just remove the line?--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion has gotten rather complex and messy. I split this new proposal because it seemed to me that a significant point of contention was the rape content, so hopefully, we can quickly achieve consensus on the other content, which are the basic facts, to include in the article first. I invite all editors to weigh in on this discussion to decide what content to include, and where. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier to follow this long unwieldy section, here is a summary of the three questions at hand:— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1. Should we include the following text?

Proposed text:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.^[1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages.^[2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him.^[3]

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2. Should we include the content on rape?

Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.

... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages.^[2] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her.^[2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3. Where should the content be placed?

Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the following places: WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:AmPol, WT:GGTF, WP:RYT, and WT:LAW.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: That is a very bad idea at this point. The discussion is chaotic and impossible to follow. It's tough enough for editors who have been engaged with this from the start. It's going to be nearly impossible for an uninvolved editor to come here, with no clearly defined issues and try to make any constructive contribution. Please remove whatever notifications you've made. If we get this to the point where we have a small number of clearly defined choices, it may then and only then be appropriate to ask for more uninvolved eyes. Or we may simply have resolved the issues here among ourselves. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be your opinion, and not a claim with any support in any policy or guideline. I have advertised the discussion at appropriate and relevant noticeboards and wikiproject talk pages in the neutral manner recommended by WP:CANVAS. I think with the above summary and below discussion, editors are perfectly able to determine their own opinions, read the options, and participate. Doubtless, many multiple discussions far worse than this are advertised widely every day without issue. If you have an issue with my notifications, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. I have no intention of removing them. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We are not determining here precisely which version of the text should be included. These proposals are rough drafts. The question here is "Should we include this content? and where?" The specifics of "What form should this content take, if included?" are more closely delineated and debated in the "Different versions of the text" section at the bottom. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1: Should we include the basic facts following text?

POV caption stricken and replaced SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.^[4] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages.^[2] Trump has appealed the verdict against him.^[5]

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for part 1

• Support as proposer, see the green box in my sources in part 2, this lawsuit and verdict has received widespread coverage in reliable sources, and satisfies WP:DUE. starship.paint (exalt) 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: this has been widely discussed and I don't see a good reason to exclude it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I should clarify: by "support" I mean I support including the verdict and what it was for. I don't think it HAS TO be in this wording, or including all the other information in this paragraph. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Agree with this proposed text. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an appropriately weighted and DUE set of facts covered in many multiple WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if part 2 is also included, otherwise oppose and support alternative by Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'm not sure I agree the jury finding can be split into "basic facts" and non-basic-facts—though I think the proposal by Space4Time3Continuum2x comes closest and presents the fewest NPOV concerns. Each of the findings were the basic facts; no one has pointed to a reliable source covering verdict that considered the rape finding to be so insignificant as to merit omission. I think an NPOV issue might emerge if the content is selectively included. But given the rarity of civil lawsuits against former presidents, I'd actually contend that any finding is notable, and they should therefore be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No This suit should not be introduced as noteworthy except in a statement of the verdict. See previous discussion and polling. This option assumes a consensus to include statement of Carroll's suit that has not been established. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose, more proseline is precisely what this article doesn't need. No good reason to quote the allegation, mention the department store detail, quote Trump's response... A truly bad idea. The "original short version", and Space4T's new proposal below, are better. DFlhb (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Concise, sufficiently comprehensive, and accurate. Looks good! --Jayron32 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (contingent on acceptance of Part 2) — Along with Part 2 it contains facts of the case that help inform the reader about the lawsuit and verdict. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, WP:NPOV and misquoting. We have a verdict, so we’re past "alleged" and "denied the allegation". For good measure, I removed "claim" for Trump's statement. Replaced Fortune with original AP article. Counter-proposal:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for "battery 'when he forcibly raped and groped her' in 1995 or 1996 and for defamation for his October 2022 statement that she "completely made up a story".^[6] In May 2023, the jury found Trump liable for battery sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in compensation and damages.^[7] He appealed the verdict.^[8]

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively: ... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the battery sexual abuse phrase intentional? (Just checking!) Also if we're going to say she accused him of rape, I think the npov concerns come up even stronger, because then it makes it look like, in accepting the battery claim, the jury also accepted the rape claim, when it rejected the rape claim and accepted a sexual abuse claim. (For purposes of this discussion I'm using "claim" in a legal sense—a plaintiff's claim against a defendant.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's one of the "three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching", per the judge's instructions, as cited in the NYT. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... I think we're maybe shooting past each other here. I mean the term "battery sexual abuse"—like words in that order. I'm 100% not an expert, but that doesn't strike me as a legitimate phrase, and I don't see it in the Times article or the jury instructions.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the notion that we should include the tenets that Carroll has accused Trump and that the jury found him liable of sexual abuse and defamation contingent that it also mentions that the jury found him not liable for rape as well. This content is WP:DUE considering that this has a court ruling. This !vote should not be one taken as a full support for the specific text above because I think we could do better. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for part 1

Part 2: Should we include the content on rape?

Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.

... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages.^[1] The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her.^[1] Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for part 2

• Support - the content is WP:DUE, as shown in international coverage in sources below, and the content closely follows the verdict form, which states: Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 1. Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll? NO. Using this wording, we avoid connotations that suggest that Trump did rape Carroll but should not pay anything, or connotations that suggest that it was proven that Trump did not rape Carroll, which is slightly different. There is also a WP:BLP issue to resolve if we describe the rape allegation but do not describe that that it was found to be unproven. starship.paint (exalt) 03:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the link to my green box list of 25+ mainstream sources on the rape content that was obviously shifted by another editor. starship.paint (exalt) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Adding that Trump was not found guilty of rape solves some possible NPOV issues. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article says anything about "forcibly raped and groped her", then it should say that the rape was not proven. If the article doesn't say this allegation, then it doesn't matter to me. I don't have an opinion whether the article should mention the allegations or not. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion not for the NPOV description, but rather for the more strict WP:DUE and WP:RSUW reasoning. It is covered in many prominent HQRSes about this topic (DJT) lasting over time and in depth. It is a very notable event in Trump's life, and our sources reflect that. This content, thereby, deserves at least minimal inclusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion on NPOV and DUE grounds. Regardless of the specific arguments by editors hoping to exclude the rape finding, let's just be clear about the result they desire: a page that only mentions the findings that were adverse to Trump and excludes the non-adverse findings. That's an obvious NPOV defect, and it's not consistent with how reliable sources have covered the jury's findings: As starship's list shows, and as I said above, every reliable covering the findings has reported the rape finding and the sexual abuse/defamation findings. See CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. And, frankly, the notion that readers can scour this other page if they want to know about the existence of the non-adverse finding is just ridiculous. I'd also incorporate my full opinion above, in which I responded to various arguments made in favor of exclusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No This is all WP:NOTNEWS framing of the content. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article. This question and the citations to news coverage ignores the views stated by many editors in the prior discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Part 1 is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is that part 1 is already too detailed and too long, yet it requires the inclusion of part 2 since we can't bring up the rape allegation without bringing up the jury verdict about it. I oppose the framing of either proposal. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of the rape verdict per Jerome Frank Disciple. As in Part 1, my !vote is not meant to be an endorsement of the specific text, just the notion that the rape verdict should be mentioned. Ultimately, there are two strong argument for inclusion. (1) The rape verdict has been extensively covered in reliable sources and the same sources that include the other findings. Go see the numerous references brough by starship below. (2) There is a NPOV issue in only mentioning what he was found liable for. It's POV cherry-picking of the verdict to only show the adverse findings by the jury. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Oddly, Trump himself isn't announcing that he was found liable for sexual abuse and not for rape. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For the battery claim, the jury instructions allowed for four results, three degrees of battery or no finding of fault. Separately, the jury was instructed to find for or against defamation. The jury unanimously found for sexual battery and defamation. So, that's what we document. If we listed all of the possible results; we would need to describe the difference. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of see this argument. But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results" (like "forcible touching"). The jury made no finding as to forcible touching, and as such, I think it's fair to say that forcible touching was just a "possible" finding. But the jury did make a finding as to rape; it found that rape had not been proven.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to the judge -- and NY legislators. Those were the jury instructions.

He offered three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching.

To find that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that it was more likely than not that Mr. Trump engaged in sexual intercourse by physical force. The judge explained that “any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening” constituted intercourse.

To find that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person, Judge Kaplan said.

Forcible touching, the judge said, “includes squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts.”[33]

The jury found for the second. We need to stop deciding what we think should or should not be the law and just report what happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to the jury form (or the many reliable sources reporting on it). The jury found that rape had not been proven. It found that sexual abuse had been proven. It made no finding on forcible touching. That's not what I think should be the law—that's what happened.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said: But I'm not sure it's entirely right to group rape among "possible results". Now you are linking to the jury form showing exactly that. Again, if we say rape was not proved and sexual abuse was; I think we should explain what that means: ""Mr. Trump subjected Ms. Carroll to sexual contact by physical force. Sexual contact is defined as touching the sexual or other intimate parts of another person." If we don't mention what wasn't found (rape), I don't think this is necessary, as I have explained previously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: POV Framing of question

This section is framed with POV prominence given to the rape text. Here is the alternative:

In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.

This fits the longstanding narrative of the article. It should have been posted with equal prominence to get neutral reactions to the proposed choice. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bob K31416 I just want to make sure—are you meaning to support starship.paint's proposal or the proposal SPECIFICO added in the middle here? @SPECIFICO I'm going to segment off your proposal into its own section to avoid this kind of confusion later. Bob, for now I'll leave your support under Specifico's proposal (even though based on your other comments I don't think that's what you meant) and let you move it up if that's what you intended.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am moving it to the section where it was originally. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! He just reverted me turning his proposal into a subsection ... so we'll just have to keep an eye here, because no, in order for people to properly voice their opinion on the part 2 proposal, they need to make sure they're keeping their position above the "alternative" that was shoehorned into the middle of the section.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose SPECIFICO alternative: This proposal censors the non adverse finding while including the adverse findings. See additional reasoning below. Would be willing to accept Space's "battery and defamation" alternative below.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I could say that you are proposing "censorship" of the explanation of sexual battery. But, neither that nor this is censorship and I wish you would stop misusing that term. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, I would say it is censorship! (On both counts). But of course there are many, many definitions of censorship—and I'd absolutely concede the way I'm using it doesn't fit every definition ... unless you consider WP editors the effective governing body of Wikipedia ... but no need to get into that discussion, so if you'd prefer I use a different word, I'm happy too! "This proposal erases the non-adverse finding while including the adverse finding."--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, Could you move this discussion of POV Framing of question, which looks like a subsection, to the discussion section? Otherwise it may be disruptive. Bob K31416 (talk)

I've added the word "comment" to address your concern. It is the same question being asked by OP, except that OP framed the question in a way that presumes the response that "rape" etc. should be included. I added the short version that was in the article and endorsed by various editors. This is one of the reasons I tried (and failed) to save everybody's time and attention by first getting agreement as to whether this poll was a good idea or well-constructed. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same question being asked by OP ... Sorry, just for clarification, are you saying that it's a comment on Part 1?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for part 2