Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BLP speculation not based on RS. "It has often been claimed..." and then repeating a partisan attack meme is not constructive and will not lead to any article content improvements here. Don't do this. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although Reagan was affected by Alzheimer's disease unlike Trump and Biden, it has been often claimed that both Trump and Biden have showed effects of senility/old age. Also, Reagan is equally notable to Trump. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Response to claims of bias

I rewrote the Response to claims of bias page:

User:Cessaune/Trump/Response to claims of bias

What do y'all think? Cessaune [talk] 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Significant improvement. DFlhb (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Very good. May still be improved, no doubt, but I would be fine with immediate implementation. Thanks for this effort. On a related note, I learned from Officer Mandruss this afternoon that I have violated penal code 13.0 archiving a dead thread. I'm a bit confused by this. We often summarily revert or archive unconstructive "suggestions" and complaints to avoid rubbernecking and soapboxing. Something seems wrong with this rule. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's cool, with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Two hours and four minutes and — presto — consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to oppose the change if you like. Cessaune [talk] 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(summoned by Chief Magistrate Mandruss) I like the new version. Of course, the biggest problem will be to get the people posting to read the response blurb. Most of the time, it seems the people posting that we are biased are one-time posters (IPs or SPAs) and are uninterested in what we have to say in defence. While I like the suggestions to point the person to appropriate avenues for them to raise their comments further (and think they are an improvement), I think it's more of a futile effort, as they rarely engage beyond the first initial post anyway. However, if we manage to send just a couple people there who will read it and act on its suggestions, we have done our job. :) Mgasparin (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Handling bias complaints

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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

Identifying a consensus as a "rough" one

Mandruss, I'm directly challenging this revert. Rough consensus is an unnecessary sub-characterization of consensus, especially given the fact that no other consensus item contains anything of the sort. Even more especially since Space4T literally talks about this specific consensus on their user page (one which went against the opinion they !voted for in the lead-linking RfC, the opinion Space4T has advocated for for a while now) and is the editor who decided to include the rough consensus characterization initially. It's a completely fair characterization, no doubt, but one that has no real reason to exist, which is why it shouldn't. Cessaune [talk] 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I hold no position on that, except that it shouldn't have been changed without some kind of agreement on this page, as I said in my revert. We're here with that (thank you), so I'm happy. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the three-sentence closing, with two of those sentences featuring "rough consensus":

A rough consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal. While Option 2 had substantial support, especially among later commenters, many suggested Option 1 as an alternative in case Option 2 failed to gain enough support. While proponents of Option 3 (de-linking) widely mentioned SEAOFBLUE, a rough consensus of editors have argued that, as paraphrased from Rhododendrites' comments, this is a wiki, and that links are what make Wikipedia unique among reference sources.

The initial version of item 60: There is a consensus to include a reasonable number of links in the lead, especially for specific items such as the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. My version: There is a rough consensus to insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. Current version: Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus) It was a badly formulated RfC, and editors responded with opinions such as "Links are what makes Wikipedia stand out among reference works" (little-known reference works such as Britannica also use them, but meh). I think we should keep the qualifier. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors also responded with opinions such as 'it'll create a SEAOFBLUE', which was never at any point relevant per the actual meaning of SEAOFBLUE. If we go down the route that the RfC was bad, only 2 out of 22 editors argued that point, so the RfC as a whole was found to be sound by most editors who participated. The fact that the close talks about rough consensus doesn't make it a necessary addition. Cessaune [talk] 13:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lead sentence?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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."

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just an aside, why isn't the term conspiracy theory used to describe the claim that Trump secretly conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election and that Trump conspired secretly with law enforcement officials to clear protesters near the White House for a church photo op? Both were later debunked by official government investigations. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Both were later debunked by official government investigations. please do not disrupt discussions with off-topic, egregious falsehoods. This is sanctionable. ValarianB (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Mueller finds no conspiracy, but report shows Trump welcomed Russian help and Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Removals of content

Previous added major information to the article with multiple sources, which @Space4Time3Continuum2x: removed and gave some commentary on.

As this is a Wikipedia article covering the topic of Donald Trump, and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, all of the information is clearly critical and notable. Donald Trump article is not just a biography, but is also an encyclopedic article about a figure in world history. Further all the content relates biographically to Donald Trump and is cited to reliable sources (RS).

The following two passages were removed together.

In the Real Estate Manhattan developments section

By 2012, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China was Trump Tower's largest office tenant.

Note: Cited to reliable sources and more can be found. The largest tenant of Trump Tower, during any length of time, in a historical article, is major information about Donald Trump. That's why we have the whole section about his business career and not just the presidency.

In the Conflicts of Interest section

According to Forbes staff, by October 2020, Trump had received approximately $5.4 million from the China state-owned bank ICBC through its $1.9 million annual rent in Trump Tower. Trump also maintained a Chinese bank account until 2018 which became a 2020 campaign issue. It was revealed that in 2016 and 2017, he paid more taxes to China ($188,561) than to the United States ($750).

Note: This is very critical to the encyclopedic concept of conflicts of interest certainly the biggest 'individual' detail for a section with that heading, and articles are sourced from late 2020. If the year was 2100 and this was a history article and Donald Trump was no longer a political subject, this would be amazingly crucial content to read about.

For both of the above, some context was given during removal, but doesn't seem like an actual removal reason except a suggestion of "moot". The edit summary was: Mention and cites at Trump_Tower#Commercial_tenants. The bank has been a tenant at Trump Tower (not Trump Building) since 2008 and downsized its space in 2019. Conflict of interest/emoluments: moot after Trump’s term had ended, per SC decision.

Counterargument: downsizing the space in 2019 doesn't reduce the historical relevance, this detail was true and reported on for over a decade into 2020 and 2022 which makes it easily relevant for the encyclopedia. Same for conflicts of interest. The widespread coverage makes it notable to include and even if it is just an event in time, it's critical and should easily pass the WP:10YEARTEST, like the other chronology in the article. The RS's cited are a fraction of the widespread coverage of both passages but are enough to justify inclusion.

This third passage was also removed.

The section about Truth Social currently has an incomplete version of events that is not updated to 2023.

A previous version, which was updated to 2023 using reliable sources, was removed. It looked like this:

Trump registered a new company in February 2021. Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) was formed for providing "social networking services" to "customers in the United States". In October 2021, Trump announced the planned merger of TMTG with Digital World Acquisition, a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). A main backer of the SPAC is China-based financier ARC Group, who was reportedly involved in setting up the proposed merger. The transaction is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground. The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings, broke ties with China in December 2021.

The removal edit summary was: Moved newly added content to the umbrella brand, Trump Organization. Too much detail in Chinese company & personnel for top bio.

First of all, 80% of this passage is already in the article. Let's say we're worried about that section looking like minutiae about registration; the additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023, actually clarifies why it is notable and is notable in itself.

I would consider the removal reasoning weak, because events this massive and international are relevant to readers seeking information about Donald Trump and Wiki is WP:GLOBAL as well as not WP:CENSORED. Given wide RS coverage, this is arguably the most notable information about Truth Social besides its other controversies and funding concerns. It also connects directly back to Trump and in its widespread coverage is fit for "top bio".

In summary, the above passages are major content to include on the Donald Trump article and both biographically important cited to reliable sources and also encyclopedically important in world history.

Sources

Thanks for reading. Feel free to comment below -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump Tower tenant ICBC

The Chinese bank rented the offices in 2008, and they were only the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Organization. In 2008, Trump was a reality TV celebrity, and I doubt the bank had a clairvoyant on its payroll who predicted Trump's 2015 presidential announcement. Emoluments: why did the bank downsize its Trump Tower office in 2019 when he was in office and the tower had plenty of vacant space? Conflicts of interest: tenants tend to pay rent, unless your Clarence Thomas's mother and Harlan Crow is your landlord. The Forbes article doesn't say whether the rent was high, low, or average for a NY 5th Ave. location. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

TMTG

Clarifying: you're proposing to add Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground.[10] The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings,[11][10][12][13] broke ties with China in December 2021.[14] Too much detail for this top bio. The first four sentences of the paragraph are in the article. You mention additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023. What are you talking about? The Reuters article you cite is dated February 10, 2022, and your sources don't include a Guardian article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the Guardian article, at Truth_Social#Russian_finance, which is where the mention belongs, for now. "According to [Guardian] sources familiar with the matter", NY prosecutors are investigating Trump Media for money laundering. The article mentions then-Trump Media CFO Philip Juhan, Trump Jr., and a few others, no mention of Trump. Until we know whether anything comes of this WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to detail in discussing this. I'll revisit in a bit -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-presidential investigations

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Lead

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)

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

References

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)

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)

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

Stating that the jury found him not liable for rape

When I originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources. NPR: The nine jurors... did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her.. and The Hill: The nine-member jury found Trump did not commit rape, but jurors found him liable for sexual abuse, another form of sexual battery. (these are both of sources cited in the current prose). Anyway, the clause mentioning Trump was found not liable for rape was removed by SPECIFICO with the rationale in the edit summary being: NPOV. Just the facts, ma'am.

To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely this BLP should say what he was found liable for, and also what he was found not liable for. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. CNBC, Politico, CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News in their news stories on this trial all state that the jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll. Certainly this is reliable information. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is UNDUE for that brief mention and the full story is at the wiki-linked page on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems that news outlets are mentioning both in the same breath, either in the same sentence, or at least in the same paragraph. I also think there's merit to the NPOV/BLP arguments, so we should include both — DFlhb (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a news outlet. SPECIFICO talk 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We rely on them to determine dueness — DFlhb (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Breaking news coverage?? No. That is incorrect. Of course on Fox the lead was "Trump exonerated of rape." SPECIFICO talk 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, to be clear, this page does not say that Carroll alleged rape. Adding that would necessitate a lot more detail on the trial that is not DUE for this page. SPECIFICO talk 09:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, it wasn't just Fox News that said that the jury didn't convict Trump of rape, it was also all the "democratic" news outlets as well. For one, the media actually all stated the same fact, even if it was exaggerated alittle.The Capitalist forever (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The jury didn't conclude that Trump didn't rape her, they concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold Trump liable for rape. There's a significant difference between these two statements. As per Politico: "The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her." Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't all the evidence or the jury instructions. But, had I been on the jury, I likely would have voted against a finding of rape due to the difficulty in proving it, even though I am quite certain it was rape. I think it should be included that the jury did not find the evidence adequate for a finding of rape, with wording such that it is clear that this does not mean there was proof it didn't occur. I do think the term battery should be added and linked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's how the legal system works in all common law jurisdictions. Do you think we should mention this in every article where a lawsuit or prosecution fails? TFD (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Fellows, the word "rape" does not appear in this long article. We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis. As a matter of fact, to do so would be like the famous Trump disinformation tactic of insinuating an idea by denying it, attributing it to gossip, or attributing it to "lots of experts say...". Further, the more significant points discussed in RS accounts are, among others, 1) his doubling down on the Access Hollywood credo that he is a star and stars are entitled to commit sexual assault 2) his not testifying or attending the trial after the devastating deposition video was introduced, and 3) his mistaking Carroll for his wife Marla, and 4) his agitated and incoherent statement post-trial in which, btw he calls the whole thing corrupt and illegitimate (including presumably the failure to find "rape").

The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about "rape" but about assault. Today, "rape" and its sexual connotations are widely rejected and deprecated in the mainstream discussion of such assaults. Only Trump, in his deposition that discussed which women were attractive enough for him to rape, has promoted this misogynistic view. All the details and context about the events are presented in our wiki-linked article about the case and at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your general argument, SPECIFICO, but I lose you on two points: "We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis." and "The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about 'rape' but about assault."

The jury didn't sua sponte find Trump not liable for rape, and Trump certainly didn't bring the claim against himself. The reason the jury made a finding as to the rape charge is because Carroll brought a claim for battery which she premised on several theories, including rape. As Carroll said in paragraph 135 of her complaint:

Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52).

Primary source. Secondary source. You seem to be suggesting that Carroll never formally alleged rape, but she did. The jury did not make a finding as to "broccoli growing in [Trump's] ear" because Carroll didn't bring a claim based on that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• The jury in question also did not find him liable for the Kennedy assassination. We don't mention everything he didn't get found liable for. Simply saying "he was found civilly liable for sexual assault against Carroll" is sufficient and complete as it is. No extra information is needed. --Jayron32 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to point out my above argument applies to this point, too. Carroll brought certain claims. One of those claims was for rape. The jury made a finding on the rape allegation because Carroll brought that claim. Carroll did not bring a claim related to the Kennedy assassination. The jury didn't make any finding—liable or not—on Trump's involvement in the Kennedy assassination because Carroll didn't bring that claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also we say he had been accused of rape, so we need to say that in the one instance the accusation was taken to court it was found to not be proven. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  We're not saying he was accused of rape, we're saying he was found liable for sexual battery and defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  "At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape", if we include that we have to also point out how in then only one was brought to trial he was found innocent of the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is what our "public profile" section says: At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing and groping without consent, looking under women's skirts, or walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.[812][813][814] In 2016, he denied all accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.[815] It was a civil lawsuit brought by one of the women. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll for the sexual attack. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  So he did not rape at least one of those accusers, which means we have to say that. We can't accuse someone of a crime they have been found not to have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  What does this lawsuit have to to with the dozens of accusations other women made over the years? Also, we're not even mentioning that Carroll sued him for rape. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll used for the sexual attack. "Judge Lewis A. Kaplan offered jurors three forms of battery under which Trump could be liable: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the connection to the other accusations, but we should absolutely say Carroll was suing him for rape and sexual assault, particularly given that the jury's findings as to those two claims were the most widely reported. Also—I just want to be clear again, Carroll argued rape, sexual assault, and forcible touching in her complaint.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Same WaPo source: For the jury to find it was rape, the judge said it would have to find that there was sexual intercourse by force, including penetration. For sexual abuse, the requirement was touching sexual or intimate parts by force. It found that the latter was likely. (Kaplan said forcible touching “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.”) The verdict will at least allow Trump to say that he wasn’t found liable for an offense as serious as the one Carroll alleged. But the size of the damages and the speed with which the jurors reached their verdict (just a few hours) suggests they were easily convinced Trump engaged in the kind of conduct he spoke about on the 'Access Hollywood' tape, in which he said that if you were a star, women would let you get away with what you want. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah that seems like a great source! ... But wait I'm not sure what that has to do with mentioning the not liable finding re: rape.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was a civil lawsuit, not an indictment. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery to the tune of $5 million, i.e., 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. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... You're losing me further. Nothing that I said suggested it was an indictment?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with both JFD and Slatersteven. The jury considered whether or not he was liable for rape, not all these other absurd examples that have nothing to do with Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This blog citing an interview Trump gave Fox News Digital appears to be the only source for Trump saying that he'll appeal. WP:NOTNEWS — the sentence is undue until he actually files an appeal. Also, I moved the text into the post-presidency section, Donald_Trump#Civil_lawsuit_for_sexual_battery_and_defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Correcting myself: The NPR source says that In an email to NPR, a lawyer representing Trump said the former president would appeal the decision. We don't need to and shouldn't quote Trump. IMO, WP:NOTNEWS also applies to the lawyer saying that he would appeal but meh, after looking at the comments in this thread. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape, and sued him for it. The jury considered the accusation of rape and did not find that Trump raped her. This has been excluded from the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [21] (relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no BLP problem. In fact, there's arguably a BLP problem to add that content, given how the page has framed the narrative of that section. Please do not add content that is under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, and DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue. [Moved below].

The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I posted this to the BLP noticeboard since four editors have raised BLP concerns.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the jury's verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, The article currently uses the source [22], which begins with the following two paragraphs.

A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who says he raped her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story.

The Wikipedia article currently says,

In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.[706]

Note that there is no mention of rape in the Wikipedia article but it is prominently in the source. The story for almost a year was the accusation of rape. Now that the jury considered the accusation of rape and unanimously did not find that it occurred, this Wikipedia article ignores that. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

and unanimously did not find that it occurred is a lie, again. not enough evidence to secure a conviction is not a finding that "it did not occur". ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

ValarianB,

The source said, "The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll."

I wrote, "...the jury considered the accusation of rape and unanimously did not find that it occurred."

They look consistent to me.

Regarding your use of the word "lie", in the beginning of the policy Wikipedia:Civility there is, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob, nobody's ignoring anything. Deciding not to include excessive and fraught detail in the bio of Trump's many years -- when we link to two other articles full of the details you crave -- is not "ignoring" anything. That is not a substantive argument, nor is it responsive to the many concerns raised by numerous editors here. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@ValarianB: I'll be honest ... I work in law, and I love distinguishing cases ... but that distinction is ... really thin. Just to put it in its proper context, it would be just as valid to say, "The jury didn't find that the sexual abuse occurred. They found that the evidence presented indicated that sexual abuse most likely occurred."--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is the top bio on Trump. The jury said that Carroll proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump sexually abused and defamed her. That's the important part, and that's what our text said. Further details belong in the main article. How is not saying that the jury said that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her a BLP problem when we don't say that Carroll accused him of rape? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, to start, why do we not say that Carroll accused him of rape? Surely that accusation is significant, no? Is it just to avoid mentioning the jury's finding?--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is close to a WP:PA. "So to start with" - if you want to contribute here - it's up to you to check your facts, the article context, and other factors raised by editors who are volunteering their time on this issue. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC*

  It's 100% not a personal attack. If you disagree, feel free to head to any noticeboard.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was about to respond WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... This is sort of the absurdity of the situation. Both of the above editors are saying there are valid reasons to exclude the jury's rape finding—chiefly, they say, it will require paragraphs of explanation. But if I say "are we not mentioning the claim in order to avoid mentioning the finding" ... you say "WP:AGF"?--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  It would be significant in most people's bios. Trump's — not so much. Sooo many accusations, indictments, lawsuits, so many related articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. This is two years back; but it's the stories of 18 women with related allegations. Doesn't include non-sexual legal problems. [23] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, and given how far apart we are, I think maybe it's time to call for an RFC. It seems to me is that your logic is "only a finding adverse to Trump is worthy of inclusion". But that's pretty obviously not how any reliable source covering the findings has reported them. See CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. Even the article that we currently (exclusively) cite, NPR, leads with the rape claim:

  The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story.

  If it's of no objection to you, I'll go ahead and set up the RFC now.

  --Jerome Frank Disciple 20:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I object. You should not be setting up an RfC, certainly not within a couple of hours of posting at BLPN for additional discussion and moreover with your relative inexperience as an editor on this page and on this site. An immediate RfC first off will delay any resolution for a month and second will lock in whatever alternatives you pose in a fast developing RS narrative as to events. Please do not do that. Let your BLPN posting work its magic. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed text (long version)

In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually battering her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. As to the battery claim, Carroll's complaint alleged Trump's conduct met the standard of several crimes under New York's penal code, include rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching.^[1][2][3] In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found that Trump was liable for the sexual-abuse and defamation claims but that Carroll had not proven the rape claim.^[4][5] The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.^[5]

References

^[1] Klasfeld, Adam (November 24, 2022). "E. Jean Carroll Files Long-Anticipated Lawsuit Accusing Trump of Rape, as New York's Adult Survivors Act Goes into Effect". Law & Crime.
^[2] de Valle, Lauren (May 10, 2023). "Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case, awards her $5 million". CNN.
^[3] Fadulu, Lola (May 9, 2023). "New York law gave jurors three types of battery to consider in the Trump case". New York Times.
^[4] Choma, Russ (May 9, 2023). "Donald Trump Sexually Abused and Defamed E. Jean Carroll, Jury Finds". Mother Jones.
^{[5] a, b} Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023.

Original version 1

Diff

In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million; though, the jury also found Trump not liable for raping Carroll.^[1][2]

References

^[1] Sullivan, Becky. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
^[2] Schonfeld, Zach (9 May 2023). "Trump found liable for sexual battery, defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". The Hill. Retrieved 9 May 2023.

Original short version

In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.^[1][2]

References

^[1] Sullivan, Becky. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
^[2] Schonfeld, Zach (9 May 2023). "Trump found liable for sexual battery, defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". The Hill. Retrieved 9 May 2023.

Version before the above "proposed text"

In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Quote from jury finding

For editors who advocate "adding the full jury decision". Please consider whether the article text should add the following jury finding about Trump's action, that he acted

"maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another"[1]

Reference

^[1] Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023.

Opinions

• Include all findings (updated from [24]). Every reliable covering the findings has reported the rape finding and the sexual abuse/defamation finding. NPR, the source currently cited, leads with the rape finding. See also CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News.
  There's no valid reason to restrict the article to the adverse findings and censor the non-adverse findings. Some editors have said the rape finding would require paragraphs because others have made rape allegations against Trump. But do we need to explain that the sexual abuse and defamation findings as to Carroll don't mean that other sexual abuse and defamation findings are true? Of course not. Some editors have alluded to length, but, particularly given that this is given its own subsection, I'm skeptical—the proposed text is four sentences. And, as Iamreallygoodatcheckers's version shows ... we can also say it in just one sentence. One editor said that non-adverse findings would not be sufficiently notable to include. But, given the rarity of civil lawsuits against former presidents, I'd actually contend that any finding is notable, and, notably, no one has pointed to a reliable source covering verdict that considered the rape finding to be so insignificant as to merit omission—again, some outlets led with the rape finding. Finally, there was a hint by one editor that including all the findings would be a BLP or OR issue. ... When asked to elaborate, that user never did.
  Ultimately, I think including only adverse findings presents an NPOV issue. I'm not sure what the actual argument against including the rape finding is—but let's be clear about the effect: what's being advocated for is an article that only mentions the findings of the jury that were adverse to Trump. That's transparently a WP:NPOV problem. And 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.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the propriety of an RFC

Improper RfC opened hours after discussion began on event that just hit the papers today. Should be closed by someone not involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Your statement is not in compliance with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". Yours is neither simple nor neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Which part of the question isn't neutral? Should this article's subsection on Carroll v. Trump include the full jury findings (which include findings as to rape, sexual abuse, and defamation) or just the findings that were adverse to Trump (i.e. sexual abuse and defamation)? Are you objecting to "full"? "Adverse"? ... I can rewrite the question without those terms no problem, but I'm not sure I see the neutrality issue. Either way, done!--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Given that @MelanieN: reverted (I'm not sure how this wasn't a "proper RFC"? In fact it was quite similar to a recent RFC on Reagan's page), then I suppose we can keep going in circles here without additional input. Fortunately, Wikipedia has no deadline, so we don't need to mention any of the jury's findings until we've straightened it all out :)--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Jerome Frank Disciple, Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I have! Not my first RFC :) But thanks for the tip.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously an encyclopedia can not be perfectly neutral when thousands of people edit it and hash out their opinions/views on talk pages like these.The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the "RFC" aspects of this question; this is merely discussion and by no means ready for RFC treatment. My own opinion: we should use the shorter of the proposed texts. The first sentence is already in the article, with a reference; we should leave it as it is. We should add the second and third proposed sentences, i.e. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.^{[1]
  [1]}Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023.}} -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: I think we should add the second and third sentences as soon as we have some kind of consensus here. If we drag out this discussion for more than a day or two, some third party will come along and add their version, which may not be nearly as good as the current suggestions. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to elaborate

With respect, you've said "we should use the shorter ... text" ... and then just proceed to explain ... what that shorter text says. Can you elaborate?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I think my comment is clear. Keep the sentence and reference that are already in the article. Add the proposed second and third sentences from the proposed shorter version above. Do it soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, I meant could you elaborate on why. Not faulting your opinion ... if someone said "I think the longer version. The first sentence should be [longer version's first sentence]. The second through fourth sentences should be [longer version's second-fourth sentences]" ... I'd also ask! Given that BLP concerns have been raised on both sides, we will have to wait for a consensus to be reached. As it stands, I don't see one. But hey, maybe soon! --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Extremely obvious we should include all the content that is typically included in the most reliable sources (NPR, NYT, WaPo). That's WP:RSUW. These sources all mention that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, Carroll was awarded $5 million, and Trump was not found liable for rape per a preponderance of the evidence. Trump has promised to appeal.
  That's all we need to say. It's not a BLP issue if we report the DUE facts most common in our RSes. That's what we're supposed to do in an ever-evolving encyclopedia. See also: WP:NOTFINISHED. Eventually it will change. The best version for right now is the ideal version to have right now.
  The only reason this is even an argument is that it's DJT's wikipedia page. This would be obvious to basically everyone involved anywhere else on this site. And that's also why the multiple other pages in this topic (the court case, Carroll, etc) all have the content already. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We have policies and guidelines as to what verified content we include in our articles and on which pages relating to a broad subject such as Trump's history with this issue. Its use in other pages is more a reason not to repeat the detail in this summary top level page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

• RE:Appeal Why is an appeal significant? But at any rate, until we have a source that verifies an appeal has been filed, or at the least Trump himself saying it's imminent, this content is not significant. Further, Tacopena could have reasons of his own for pushing an appeal via an unauthorized statement to the press. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• What to put here? - There is no NPOV case against including the Trump-favorable alongside the Trump-unfavorable — quite the opposite — provided we don't say the jury found that he did not commit rape. The Trump-favorable is all over our RS alongside the Trump-unfavorable. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be honest I'm a little confused here. Are you saying we should include that the jury found that Carroll did not prove her rape claim or that we shouldn't?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  We should say that the jury didn't find that he committed rape, not that they did find that he didn't. The difference is subtle but important. It's equivalent to the Mueller Report's failure to find a certain kind of wrongdoing, which was not to exonerate Trump of it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Frankly, I don't see why the jury just took her word for the "sexual abuse" but not for the rape, but let's not go any further down that WP:FORUM road.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the jury simply followed NY law as instructed. The top charge requires penile penetration, which was not convincing to the jury. The other charges do not. But, you're right. This is a path Frost would have preferred not taken here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  It does make me wonder in hindsight, should the verdict form have just said rape or sexual abuse is one question, instead of separate ones. That may have invited this sort of distinction to be drawn in a way that creates confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Original Short Version" is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Include all findings. This is a BLP, and thus we have to include the result of all accusations and charges. We can't say he has been accused of rape without also posting out a court has said he did not commit at least one alleged rape. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Steven, there was no such court finding, and this page does not associate Carroll with such allegation. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO made good arguments; I'd go for the original short version; the salient parts are what he was found liable for, and the dollar amount. I'll temper what I said earlier: I looked at more media coverage, and most outlets don't bring up rape "in the same breath", while some just say Caroll accused him of battery/assault, and don't mention the rape accusation at all except to say he's not been found liable for it. "original version 1" is also acceptable, but I don't think it's necessary. DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• We should say the jury found him liable for X and not liable for Y. It’s that simple, per the preponderance of reliable sources. If people need an additional reason to include both X and Y, consider this: zillions of reliable sources discussed the rape accusation before the verdict, so we have to include the accusation by any reasonable standard of Wikipedia editing, and it would be a venal disgrace for us to mention the accusation without also saying he was found not liable. And if another reason is needed, there is the fact that rape is often described using a euphemism such as “sexual assault” and many readers may think the actual thing he was held liable for is such a euphemism. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  zillions of reliable sources discussed the rape accusation before the verdict -- Yes indeed, but exercising our powers of NPOV and ONUS, the longstanding consensus here was not to discuss Carroll's rape allegation on this page. So what's changed? Nothing. So, Anythingyouwant has just proved why this article should not do so now. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  E. Jean Carroll's name along with all her allegations against Trump, whether it be rape, defamation, or sexual abuse, was not mentioned on this page until two days when I added the first sentence about the verdict. So if you think the rape verdict shouldn't be mentioned because of the absence of discussion of the rape allegations then why doesn't the same argument apply to the defamation and sexual abuse findings by the jury? They aren't discussed in the article either. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. Feel free to remove. I removed part of your addition, but it would have been better if you'd removed the rest of it as premature. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be better to remove all mention of the verdict, rather than just a part of it, because of the inherent NPOV concerns I and other editors have presented in this discussion. This should be the status quo until a consensus (if any) arises from this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not surprising as he has been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits since elected. See: Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The judge gave the jury instructions on sexual battery with four possible verdicts including not libel. They were allowed to select and found for one of the four. We are reporting on the selection. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Euphemism? "I’m a sexual abuser, not a rapist." "Yeah, not inviting you to my party, either." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional discussion

• User:Jerome Frank Disciple, User:Mandruss, User:Slatersteven, User:Shibbolethink, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers, User:Objective3000, User:The Capitalist forever, User:DFlhb, It appears that you are in favor of including that the jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll. There was a short statement of that in the article and it was removed [25]. Would it be acceptable to you to restore it? Here's the item to restore,

"though the jury did not find that he raped her."

Here's what was in the source there [26],

"The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll."

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Don’t include me in the list as I am of two minds on this. If we are to state that the jury voted yes on sexual assault and no on rape; do we not have the obligation to explain the difference ‘twixt the two in NY statute? That is, forced, penile, vaginal penetration versus forced, digital, vaginal penetration. I’m fine with this in the article on the trial. But, do we want details in the main article on DJT? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think, as almost every reliable source covering this did, we just say what the jury found (that there the preponderance evidence supported the sexual abuse and defamation charges but not the rape charge), and in terms of the distinctions between the laws, there we can rely on Carroll v. Trump.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that RS never explained what these terms mean? I just looked at the NYT: "It was not clear why jurors chose the lesser offense of abuse over rape. Sexual abuse is defined in New York as subjecting a person to sexual contact without consent. Rape is defined under state law as sexual intercourse without consent that involves any penetration of the penis in the vaginal opening." This was in a post-verdict article. That is, they didn't separate the facts into two separate articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry my "as" clause was referring to "what the jury found". Some sources touched on the difference in the charges (NYT, very briefly, NPR, not so much), though NYT went into far more detail the day before the verdict when covering the jury instructions. CNN covered it a fair bit towards the end of its article; NBC didn't. If you really think we need to—and to be clear I don't—we can say that rape in New York, unlike sexual abuse, requires penile penetration.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we have to let the discussion go on a bit longer, since there are a few editors who only want to mention the adverse findings for "narrative" reasons, or something.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop the snide comments about other editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Disciple, please do not WP:CANVASS. Further to what @Objective3000: says, I have seen no source that suggests that the rape/assault terminology (which is from criminal statutes) would have or did affect the amount of the damages for which Trump was found liable. To me, this looks in part like a sexual fetishization of the such an attack -- the very sort of narrative that Trump repeated in his deposition and defamation, that Carroll rejected, and that she dedicated herself to oppose. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... Are you confusing me for someone else? I haven't canvassed. Are you referring to the pings that User:Bob K31416 added? (That's also not canvassing—he was pining people already in this discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: I appreciate the update!--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Actually it is as they posted that they believed all were on the same side of an issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

I've repeatedly expressed my confusion and desire for an explanation as to why only adverse findings should be included. You've now tried to tone police me twice ... the first time for asking if the reason that we didn't mention the rape allegation was so that we didn't have to mention the rape finding ... you said that was a violation of AGF, even though the editors I was talking to ... were straight up arguing that there were objective reasons to exclude the rape finding. Notably, that effort at tone policing came one comment after an editor you agree with said, "if you want to contribute here - it's up to you to check your facts, the article context, and other factors raised by editors who are volunteering their time on this issue". To that editor, you said nothing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I already said I'm of two minds. Stop trying to pigeonhole editors. And, seems to me there has been a great deal of explanation of positions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Okay, your concerns are noted.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of including the detail about the rape verdict, but not in the form presented above by @Bob K31416. I would be more in favor of this wording, as it is more supported by the NYT source and more adherent to NPOV: On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had raped her. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm ... mostly okay with that? I do think it's potentially a bit misleading, though. The standard was preponderance of the evidence for all the claims. Why single out the rape claim? Maybe "Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had established that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her." Jerome Frank Disciple 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Following the actual verdict

The actual verdict states, as CBS News describes: In the jury's verdict form, in response to the first question, "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll," the jury said, "no," but it answered "yes" to the next question posed, about whether he had sexually abused her. The jury found that Carroll had been harmed as a result of Trump's actions, and that $2 million would "fairly and adequately" compensate her for those injuries. It also answered "yes" to the question about whether Trump had defamed Carroll and said nearly $3 million should be given to Carroll for damages. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Text, just regarding the verdict, that would follow the verdict -

  The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it first stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and then 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.

  starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: What leads you to determine this is a significant event in the biography of Trump? It's a highly significant fact in the life of Carroll. It's highly significant for women's rights. But it is UNDUE to highlight this incident with detail beyond the longstanding determination of editors as to the narrative concering his misogyny and sexual misconduct. He already told us in the 2016 Access Hollywood Tape that he sexually assaults women. The significance of this case is not about whether he is an abuser. It is about his having been held accountable for lying and defamation. The short text covers that and ties this event into the longstanding consensus narrative of this top-level bio article. Content for which detail is DUE and significant on one particular WP article page is not necessarily due weight for all other related pages. If any more detail is added beyond the damages, we would need also to add lots of context that would unduly expand our section on such misconduct and allegations. We are still in the fog of WP:NOTNEWS on this matter. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  What I'm understanding from your comment is that the actual verdict about Trump is not signficant, but you view the narrative concering his misogyny and sexual misconduct as far more important? The thing is, Trump has been accused of rape in a lawsuit that actually reached a decision (very significant, and WP:BLP comes into play) and that decision was that rape was not proven (equally significant). Narrative > Facts? starship.paint (exalt) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

NBC: A New York jury found Trump liable of sexual abusing Carroll in a Manhattan department store nearly three decades ago. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages for her battery and defamation claims but said Trump wasn't liable for Carroll's alleged rape. NY Times: A Manhattan jury on Tuesday found former President Donald J. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. More than a dozen women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, but this is the only allegation to be affirmed by a jury. In the civil case, the federal jury of six men and three women found that Ms. Carroll, 79, a former magazine writer, had sufficiently proved that Mr. Trump sexually abused her nearly 30 years ago in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. The jury did not, however, find he had raped her, as she had long claimed. Why the lengthy Trump quote in your proposed text, and why start off with the battery charge the jury didn't think had been proven instead of the one they thought had been proven and for which they awarded Carroll a compensation of $2,020,000? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) The Reuters article you added in this edit: Jurors were tasked with deciding whether Trump raped, sexually abused or forcibly touched Carroll, and were separately asked if Trump defamed Carroll. The jurors found Trump sexually abused her but not that he raped her. Before the jurors began deliberating, Judge Lewis Kaplan defined rape for them as non-consensual "sexual intercourse" through "forcible compulsion." He described sexual abuse as non-consensual "sexual contact" through forcible compulsion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, that order (i.e. mentioning the rape finding first) reflects the jury form and the NPR article we currently rely on (which, as I said, leads with the rape finding—see pull quote above). I think the overall finding of liability indicates that the findings of liability should be placed first, even though I obviously don't think we should censor the non-adverse findings from this article.
Overall, though, I think @Starship.paint: is right—though for the reasons I just stated I would suggest either the longer proposed version or the single-sentence version proposed by Iamreallygoodatcheckers. First, WP:DUE chiefly concerns viewpoints. Second, it's absurd to argue that this is undue, regardless, given that every media organization covering the jury's findings has mentioned each of the findings (and not just CBS, but also NBC, NYT, CNN, NPR, etc., all of which I've linked). Specifico, you have to keep WP:NPOV in mind.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV. In fact, I'll ask you please to read that policy page very carefully, if you don't mind the suggestion. It is not clear to me that you understand what NPOV requires. My argument from the beginning has been that mention of rape in this context violates NPOV. I'd ask you not to comment again in this thread until you review that argument, which has been made by several longtime editors here, and then reply directly stating why you disagree. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Asking me not to make snide comments before accusing me of not reading your comments and innovating "longstanding" twice? A little on the nose there, no? Fortunately, I'm sure you're the kind of person capable of taking their own advice. I've reviewed all of your comments—you've invoked more than just NPOV—you actually invoked BLP at one point. I've asked you to elaborate on those invocations—I've asked how the proposed text above would violate BLP ... and broadly I've asked how including the full jury verdict would be promoting a "non-neutral point of view" ... while only including adverse rulings, which is what you're advocating for, would not. But let's take NPOV seriously—WP:BALANCE (part of NPOV) says, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." Now, every source that I've cited—NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS, NBC—has given prominence to every aspect of the jury's findings, including the rape finding. Have you found sources that only briefly touch on the rape finding or don't mention it at all?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll just remind you that we are at RFCBEFORE here, and your concerns will best be served by proposing an edit or edits that satisfy all of the views here that are well founded. In that process, it is unlikely that legalistic-sounding OR by we the editors is going to be a convincing rationale for any such text. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you've also sometimes invoked OR. Could I ask what I've proposed that you think is OR?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Carroll is now considering suing DJT again as he has continued to make the same statements after they have been declared defamatory.[27] Hard to add this as it's all been removed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Melania, hubby's birthday is coming up next month. Maybe buy him a diamond-studded muzzle? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We can also expect similar complaints from some number of the other women. That's another reason not to start inserting UNDUE detail regarding individual civil cases here. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - you asked me why start with unproven rape instead of proven abuse, (1) that was the order in the verdict, (2) it would be weird in my opinion to go: "abuse, rape, defame, damages" or "abuse, defame, rape, damages". But, I am OK if the order is "abuse, defame, damages, rape." Would you accept such an order? The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it 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. The jury also stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. starship.paint (exalt) 08:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone has removed the entire subsection from the main space. I’m good with waiting for the verdict to become final, per WP:NOTNEWS. Trump filed the notice of appeal yesterday. Now he has 14 days to file the pre-argument statement with "a brief, but not perfunctory, description of the nature of the action" and a "list of the issues proposed to be raised on appeal, as well as the applicable appellate standard of review for each proposed issue." My opinion if he loses the appeal: there are several criminal investigations ongoing, so let’s keep the eventual text as short as possible. Heading "Civil case for sexual battery and defamation", text: the jury awarded Carroll $2 million for sexual abuse and $ 3 million for defamation, or s.th. along those lines. RS differed on the order of mentioning the battery accusations on the verdict form. The three I quoted above lead off with the proven accusations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a "Civil case for rape, sexual battery and defamation". Rape and defamation were the accusations for most of the time. Sexual battery was only added later by the plaintiff, probably in case the rape accusation didn't hold up, which turned out to be the correct strategy by the plaintiff's lawyer.

Also, starship.paint's version is acceptable for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

... That's not quite correct. It was a civil case for battery and defamation. Here's the complaint. In relevant part, the Complaint laid out theories of battery partially based on different NY penal law.

Count 1
Battery
....
122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her.
123. Trump intentionally, and without her consent, attacked Carroll to satisfy his own sexual desires. Trump’s physical contact with Carroll was offensive and wrongful under all the circumstances. Trump continued to attack and rape Carroll despite her attempts to fight against him.
....
125. Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52).

Note this is document "1" in the docket, which means it was the first filed thing in the civil case.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, it is not helpful for editors to offer their personal opinions on matters of law. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What did I say above that you think is a personal opinion? I'm genuinely baffled. I even posted the complaint, do you think I'm misquoting? I also included a secondary source, above, but here it is again. Do you not agree the claims were for battery and defamation?

You've already made one personal attack against me that you've conceded was false. You've now repeatedly accused me of OR (and once of a BLP violation?). When I've asked you to elaborate, which I've done multiple times (see my posts at 17:31, 11 May 2023 and 18:25, 10 May 2023), you've fled. (Also, "no personal opinions" coming from the guy who compared a rape claim to a claim that Trump had broccoli growing in his ear is pretty rich.) Be specific, or, if you can't, maybe stop repeatedly suggesting that I'm violating OR.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Frank Disciple, Thanks for that correction regarding the lawsuit. I think I recalled incorrectly something I read in a source that may have been something like this from E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump, "In November 2022 Carroll filed a second suit against Trump, renewing her claim of defamation due to more recent statements by him and expanding her claim to battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations."

BTW, is starship.paint's version acceptable to you? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That completely makes sense! (It's also, admittedly, confusing.) I'm fine with starship's version, but I would suggest that, if we want to only briefly discuss the case, the version drafted by Iamreallygoodatcheckers is probably going to be a better compromise, for some of the reasons I said above (as to letting the overall finding of liability dictate what gets stated first).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Re "letting the overall finding of liability dictate what gets stated first", both versions do this. Here they are for comparison.

A. starship.paint's version,

The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it 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. The jury also stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her.

B. Iamreallygoodatcheckers original version 1,

In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million; though, the jury also found Trump not liable for raping Carroll.[1][2]

I have a problem with the last part of B because it sounds to me like Trump raped her but wasn't liable for it. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh you're referring to the updated version—sorry I was reading the tq2 text at the top. I'm not sure I take the same meaning from B that you do, but yes I'd be fine with starship's version there. (If we're going to give this its own section, I still don't know why we don't just bother to detail everything in #Proposed text (long version), but no worries. I don't think we're close to having a consensus on this yet, regardless.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

One reason for not being close to having a consensus is that there are various versions considered in various places here and it's not that easy to follow. We might consider starting a new Talk section that proposes starship.paint's version to overcome that difficulty and have something tangible and specific that editors can decide whether they want it or not. For me, when considering a version, I'm not seeking exactly what I want but rather something that is acceptable, so that this task can be completed and we can move on. Maybe User:starship.paint might start a Talk section (not subsection) with their proposal. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• If Trump was found not liable on all claims, then none of this would have been worth mentioning in the lead. The significance of the event stems from the finding of liability on the sexual abuse and defamation claim, which is unprecedented, and not the lack of liability on the rape claim, which is comparable to the dozens of lawsuits filed against him alleging egregious acts and leading nowhere. Therefore, the latter part is not worth mentioning, and while it may be contentious now it will certainly lack in relevance in the years to come. NeverEndingForever (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• I made this edit [28] adding the E. Jean Carroll content to the currently existing Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section. I don't believe much more detail is needed than that, since there are links to E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump and already to the Main article: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations if readers want information beyond what that paragraph provides. Some1 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is insufficient, though it is in the right direction as it actually mentions the lawsuit. It does not even mention the verdict, though. This is a hugely substantial event in Trump's life, as the first instance where a Jury has found Trump, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, committed sexual misconduct against a woman. That's huge news. It's $5 million worth of news. I have restored the following version to Donald Trump § Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, which appears to my eyes to have a loose consensus (as it does not touch on the rape verdict and has agreement from the plurality of users in this thread by my reading of the discussion):

  Several women have filed lawsuits against Trump. In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency, in the case titled E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump. On May 9, 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. The attorney representing Trump stated the verdict would be appealed.

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, gee, well thank you for reinserting my wording — in the wrong section, with a second source that is unnecessary because the NPR cite has all the facts and they're the ones who heard from Trump's lawyer, with an added first sentence that is unsourced. Also, Trump filed his notice of appeal two days ago, and there is no consensus to add anything at this point. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Will adapt to these changes thanks for the heads up. Have no intention to self-revert. You may, as always, feel free to revert. The first sentence was actually in the version of this text on this page I copied from, not my wording, and happy to remove it. Many of the things you have suggested were consequences of using the old version and no need to get snappy about it! Our work is never done etc. etc. One question: how is this the wrong section? What is the correct section, in your eyes? Using two high quality sources is preferred to using one, per WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:BLP. Edit: done. Happy to edit further if requested. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring and then challenging another editor to escalate is not good.

This is a hugely substantial event in Trump's life I see no sign of that in RS. Access Hollywood was a substantial event. This page mentions other substantial events. What tertiary sources conclude that this is considered and will continue to be viewed as a hugely etc.? SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we have to rely on tertiary sources to evaluate that? That's not what WP:DUE or WP:TERTIARY tells us to do. Those policies tell us to use secondary sources first to evaluate due and undue weight, and only when those sources are contradictory to rely on tertiary ones. That isn't the case here.

Secondary sources nearly unanimously cover this event as significant. It's only been 5 days and there are already (in some search engines) more hits about this topic than the access hollywood tape, and in others, about the same number of hits. That's an event 5 days ago versus 7 years ago:

	"Trump verdict E Jean Carroll"	"Trump Access Hollywood Tape"
Google News:	111,000	4,460
Google Scholar:	7,910	10,900
Gale OneFile:	797	3,990
EBSCO:	117	383

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say the general structure of this section is flawed as the paragraphs descend in increasing significance (i.e. from "insulting and belittling women", to "publicly accused of rape", to "liable for defamation and sexual abuse"). As to this edit specifically, if the verdict is going to be in the last paragraph it should at least be displayed at the beginning rather than hidden in the middle. While your order might make sense chronologically, this article is after all focused around important events related to Trump, and starting with "In 2022, E. Jean Carroll..." undermines that. NeverEndingForever (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Could either of you write a draft of how you would structure it? This paragraph specifically. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Digression given that no one is arguing this info is DUE here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
FYI: The trial took place in federal court, not in the New York Supreme Court, as you wrote, unsourced, here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This page has really been whitewashed to remove this civil lawsuit which determined that Trump sexually abused her from this page. A single user has removed this entirely, which nobody else on this talk page is suggesting. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The various iterations of the text were removed several times before. This was the second-to-last time. Nothing to do with whitewashing, quite the opposite, actually. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why include something like "In 2016, he denied all accusations" and not the fact that a court found him culpable? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why include something like "In 2016, he denied all accusations" and not the fact that a court found him culpable?
100% agreed. It's a major NPOV issue to not include any of this content at all. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You're quoting from the "Public profile" section, "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" subsection where we mention at least 26 women who publicly accused Trump and—per WP:BLP—that he denied all accusations. I wrote earlier that Shibbolet added their text to the wrong section. The lawsuit doesn't belong there but in the "Post-presidency" section, along with the other—currently pending—cases, and we don't have a consensus on how to word it. The verdict in this case hasn't become final, Trump has filed a notice of appeal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

And she is considering another suit for his post-suit comments. Which we won't add now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Consider me confused. You want to add it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The lawsuit doesn't belong there but in the "Post-presidency" section, along with the other—currently pending—cases, and we don't have a consensus on how to word it.
This appears to be your opinion, and I completely disagree with it. It's part of his sexual misconduct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree with the quoted statement; the Carroll lawsuit belongs in the Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct subsection. Some1 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc. "Trump denies all allegations". This covers all bases. No need to get into court decisions, since he routinely denies such judgments as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be in the "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" section, not the "post-presidency" section. However, it being in the article at all is more important than what section it is in. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Because a few editors mentioned BLP concerns above and the notion that only including adverse verdicts would be a NPOV issue, the content is, at this point, challenged, and should remain out pending the discussion (see also Iamreallygoodatcheckers's comment). Fortunately, there is no deadline on Wikipedia! We'll get it right when we get it right.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year away

"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)

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

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump

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)

Part 1: Should we include the basic facts?

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. 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. Trump has appealed the verdict against him.

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

Votes for part 1

• Support as proposer, see the green box in my vote 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Support: Agree with this proposed text. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as an appropriately weighted and DUE set of facts covered in many multiple WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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. The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Discussion for part 2

25+ mainstream sources showing national and international coverage on content on rape, proving WP:DUE - starship

Associated Press (link) - paragraph 2: The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped... Reuters (link) - paragraph 21: The jurors found Trump sexually abused her but not that he raped her. Agence France Presse (link) - paragraph 2: The nine jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll's accusation of rape... CNN (link) - paragraph 3: ... the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her. NBC News (link) - paragraph 1: ... not liable for her alleged rape ... and paragraph 3: Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll, 79, had proven “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll,” the nine-person jury checked the box that said “no.” ABC News, American version (link) - paragraph 4: Jury members found that Trump did not rape Carroll but sexually abused her ... CNBC (link) - paragraph 3: Jurors notably did not find Trump liable for rape ... CBS News (link) - paragraph 4: The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, but not rape, and also found that he defamed Carroll ... Bloomberg (link) - paragraph 3: The jury stopped short of finding Trump liable for rape, which has a technical definition under New York state law. USA Today (link) - paragraph 2: The jury, which deliberated fewer than three hours, opted not to find Trump liable for rape but rather sexual abuse that injured Carroll. The New York Times (link) - paragraph 2: The jury did not, however, find he had raped her, as she had long claimed. The Washington Post (link) - paragraph 9: While jurors found for Carroll on both of those claims, they did not find that she convinced them Trump raped her. The Wall Street Journal (link) The jury, following a two-week civil trial, didn’t find that Mr. Trump committed rape but found it more likely than not that he sexually abused Ms. Carroll ... NPR (link) - paragraph 2: The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. PBS (link) - paragraph 2: ... it stopped short of saying Mr. Trump raped her. UPI (link) - paragraph 2: It did not, however, reach a unanimous agreement that he raped Carroll. Telemundo, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) - paragraph 1: Carroll acusó al expresidente de violación, pero el jurado le consideró no responsable ... Univision, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) - paragraph 2: Los miembros del jurado rechazaron la afirmación de Carroll de que fue violada ... Australian Broadcasting Corporation (link) - paragraph 1: Former US president Donald Trump sexually abused magazine writer E Jean Carroll and then defamed her by branding her a liar, a jury in a civil trial has decided, but the jurors found he did not rape her. British Broadcasting Corporation (link) - paragraph 2: But Mr Trump was found not liable for raping E Jean Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman. Al Jazeera (link) - paragraph 4: The nine-member jury determined on Tuesday that the ex-president did not rape Carroll ... Der Speigel (link) ... Der frühere US-Präsident stand ursprünglich wegen Vergewaltigungsvorwürfen der Journalistin E. Jean Carroll vor Gericht, die Jury sah diesen Vorwurf jedoch als nicht bewiesen an. The Guardian (link) - paragraph 2: The jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, as she alleged. Forbes staff (link) - paragraph 1: A jury found former President Donald Trump liable in civil court for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, but unanimously rejected her claim that Trump raped her ... The Hill (link) - paragraph 2: The nine-member jury found Trump did not commit rape, but jurors found him liable for sexual abuse, another form of sexual battery. Politico (link) - paragraph 4: The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her. The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her.

These are contemporaneous news reports and are not indicative of due weight for Trump's top-level biography page in an encyclopedia. Any judgment based on such inference is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This argument holds very little weight in my opinion, per WP:NOTFINISHED. If that's true, then you are welcome to remove it in the future when it is no longer relevant. Until then, our sources clearly say it is DUE, so it should be included. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article.

Where in the policies and guidelines are you deriving this argument from? WP:DUE and WP:TERTIARY do not say that. They say it only comes down to tertiary sources when the secondary sources disagree. In this case, they do not. There are tens of thousands of news sources (many high quality) covering this event in just the last 5 days, in some places even more than the Access Hollywood tape:

	"Trump verdict E Jean Carroll"	"Trump Access Hollywood Tape"
Google News:	111,000	4,460
Google Scholar:	7,910	10,900
Gale OneFile:	797	3,990
EBSCO:	117	383

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Votes for part 3

• In the misogyny and sexual harassment section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would say in misogyny and sexual harrassment section as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above for Option B, for Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. Per the principle of least astonishment, we have an imperative to put content where it would be most sought after. A person reading this table of contents would see the heading "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" and expect some content there about E. Jean Carroll's allegations of sexual misconduct and Trump's defamation towards her. Someone would not equally be "astonished" if this content were not present where investigations about his financial misconduct are, as these are largely two different spheres of Trump's WP:DUE-establishing WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Post-presidency section, subsection "Sexual battery and defamation lawsuit", for now. Subsection heading possibly to be changed to "civil cases", later; there will likely be at least one other civil case, the NY case for fraud. I would not look for post-presidential criminal and civil actions against Trump in the "public profile" (Trump's public image) section or on Public image of Donald Trump, I'd look in post-presidency and Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Narrowly Option B. I sort-of see what Space4Time3Continuum2x is saying, but I also think that someone looking at the misogyny and sexual harassment section would be surprised to not see the lawsuit there. The lawsuit is just inherently germane to that section--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

References

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

• @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, The Capitalist forever, SPECIFICO, and DFlhb:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Alcibiades979, Slatersteven, The Four Deuces, Objective3000, and Jerome Frank Disciple:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Jayron32, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Bob K31416, Mandruss, and NeverEndingForever:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Lights and freedom, MelanieN, ValarianB, Some1, and Shibbolethink:. See above multi-part discussion. I think that's everyone who participated in the recent past discussions, and I apologise if I left anyone out. starship.paint (exalt) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Starship.paint: have you considered turning this to a RfC? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - I thought there were enough potential participants even without an RFC, but I do not object if you choose to turn it into one. starship.paint (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I prefer structuring text to emphasize important information rather than using a chronological narrative. In this case, the jury decision is more important than details about the original complaint. So the para should begin with the decision. Also saying that someone had proved something is tendentious. We would say for example that Charles Manson was found guilty of murder, not that the prosecutor proved he was guilty of murder. Furthermore, the decision is not final since it is subject to appeal and civil courts decide on a balance of probablities. So we should avoid a triumphant tone in the text. TFD (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think the propositions shouldn't be text-proposals, just general ideas being brought forth, such as "Part 1: should we include he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation" and "Part 2: should we say he was not found liable for rape." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree largely with TFDs arguments above, I will also say the wording is awkward not just tendentious. There has to be a better way to word the content than such a roundabout phrase about having not proved X or Y. If there isn't, I am glad it is close to the source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and Shibbloethink: - apologies that I did not word it in the way that would best satisfy you. May I suggest supporting the content in spirit but raising the possibility of some re-ordering and re-wording to the text? starship.paint (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  yes I agree, I support the text as written but would prefer a tighter version. I do agree with the choice (intentional or unintentional) to leave out certain UNDUE details like 1) which court these things are in (NY state supreme, 2nd circuit appeals), 2) the very specific dates, 3) the makeup of the jury, etc. I think any of those details would likely be UNDUE on this page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink:, typo, ^ starship.paint (exalt) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think given the particulars of the jury finding, it actually makes sense to lead with the explanation (that's what I did in my proposed version). I do think the order here is a little strange—I'd personally state all the findings before the damages (e.g., "Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages."), but of course if we lead with "Trump was found liable for", then that will be even harder to do. I also think the second half of the first sentence in part 1 is a bit awkward. (Maybe "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 the mid 1990s, and for defamation on the basis of Trump's 2022 comment that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.? Idk rough drafts.) But we can nitpick the wording after the RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Both proposals are too detailed for this bio. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict. Either with {{Main}} or inline link, depending on location. I agree with TFD that the jury decision is more important than the original complaint, and don't agree with the other proposals. This version is devoid of any "tone" and sufficient until the verdict becomes final or is thrown out by the appeals court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be okay with this version (no NPOV concern), but I disagree that a version that names the claims is inherently too much detail. I do think some have been confused because this was, temporarily, given its own subsection, and they didn't realize that was controversial at the time—that's the impression I was under when I drafted my proposed long version. As I've said, given the rarity of civil suits against former presidents, and the even greater rarity of jury findings, I do think the suit and the findings are inherently relevant and sufficiently notable to include here. And even my hyper-detailed "long version" was ultimately ... four sentences.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  "battery and defamation" is not a good summary. This is not "Legalapedia" it's Wikipedia. We should say "sexual abuse and defamation" as that is what our highest quality RSes say. Otherwise I think @Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is fine, if perhaps too tersely worded. I would, for example, say "Shortly after, Trump appealed the verdict" or "Trump has appealed the verdict" or similar and remove the "her" in "pay her". I would also include at least one or two more sources since this is a BLP issue and that guideline recommends multiple independent sources on stuff like this. I would combine @Jerome Frank Disciple's version and your version, STC. E.g. copyedit:

  In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. Trump has appealed the decision.

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd, with regret, have to strongly object to that proposal. Particularly and especially if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape finding. (Though, to be clear, as I've said, I think we should mention that finding regardless.) I know that it doesn't mention the findings first—as I said above, I'm not convinced doing so is prudent here given the semi-complex findings—but I think this is the best version: (I'm leaving out references, which I've previously included, because they're easy to add and nothing here is controversial):

Withdrawn proposal

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery and defamation. Carroll said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. A federal jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; it awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump appealed the decision.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences.

if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape finding

fair point. I would agree if we use that quote, we should also mention that the jury did not find him liable for that. If we end up leaving out the rape finding, then we could summarize instead as:

In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. Trump has appealed the decision.

Sources

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences. But even more have said that the rape accusation and finding should be included. (I'm also not sure a consensus agree with TFD's argument. In the above discussion, one thing that was repeatedly mentioned was that we should say that a jury found that Carroll didn't prove that Trump had raped her, not that the jury found that Trump didn't rape her. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the other findings?) Now, Iamreallygoodatcheckers suggested a Part I that says the adverse findings and a Part II that says the non adverse finding, but I'm not sure how to phrase that without a lot of awkwardness. Frankly, I don' think it's at all unusual to start with a lawsuit being filed before saying the result of the lawsuit—particularly in a span of 3 sentences.

@Shibboleth: Best I can do (to meet Iamreallygoodatcheckers's suggestion combined with yours and Space4Time3Continuum2x's proposals):

In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with this version, as a compromise between my preferences and those of others. It's comprehensive, succinct, takes up very little space, and is clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Aw look at us go. I kept fumbling with how to mention the adverse findings first without awkwardly mentioning the rape finding ... and this possible solution came to me when I took another look at @Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s proposed text. Also pinging @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: and @Starship.paint: to see how they feel about this.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Immediately after the verdict, the Fox headline was “Trump exonerated from rape charge”. I fear saying that rape was not found without explaining just what the finding of sexual assault means will lead to guys thinking that’s just like when I stole a kiss from Betty Sue after the prom and she said “yecch”. Much ado. Sexual assault is a grievous attack and we may come across as belittling it by saying, well, could have been worse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So the official finding was "sexual abuse". Just want to make sure we're using the right terms. Separately, frankly, though I usually hate when this is invoked, that strikes me as a WP:RGW argument—that we should set the record straight. Update: And I also don't think anyone would seriously see a "sexual abuse" finding and think "oh he probably just kissed her without her consent". That seems like a pretty absurd stretch. If you want to spend more words describing the claims, that's one thing, but "Let's censor the rape finding so that people don't have this absurd interpretation of a sexual-abuse finding" just doesn't fly with me. It's enough to describe the claims and findings accurately—using their proper names—and depend on the article on the case to delve into more detail.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) --21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever to do with RGW. This has to do with leaving the reader with an accurate picture. The jury found for battery, which is worse than assault. Yes, use the correct terms. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) You can strike them. As for what other people might think, there were women at his rallies after the Access Hollywood tape with t-shirts pointing downward saying "grab me here." It would be a mistake to believe everyone who reads WP thinks rationally about sexual battery. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of false allegation / edit conflicts

Clarification: I updated my prior post, marked it as updated, even pinged the user to alert him to the update. The user then accused me of deleting a post after he had responded to it. I pointed this out on the user's talk page ... alas, the claim is still here. Oh well.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I have run into four ECs trying to respond to you as you keep editing your own responses. And anyone is welcome to read the nonsense you posted to my TP, along with Bish's response to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) So you concede what you said is wrong? Thanks, I'll RPA it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Meta-question

Should we proceed with the new structured poll above , or is further discussion better so we agree on options to be polled?

1. Proceed with the "multi-part proposal" as identified in the poll above.
2. Abort this poll and continue discussion to collaboratively identify questions for any new poll.
   

SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 As already commented above, Starship - despite all good intentiions -- has not worded the poll well enought to reflect what editors think would be constructive choices. Excessive structure and limited choices only force editors to add more and more alternatives, which is what Starship says they wanted to remedy. Cancel this poll and continue discussion, first identifying key issues of disagreement. Unfortunately, the poll above fails to do so. See hat below for further rationale SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This poll is premature and poorly constituted, because it does not address the the crux of the issues raised by editors above. Forcing a discussion into a second structured poll, when the first was premature, will only impede the effort to agree on what text should be added to this article -- which entails NOTNEWS and WEIGHT, rather than how many secondary news sources we can google. Without any disrespect to Starship.paint, this was a bad move, and we can return to any future poll after WP:RFCBEFORE has given us the right structure to find a good solution. Now that we've been asked to go through another poll, we need first to determine whether that is a reasonable way forward at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. I do think the selected possibilities were unfortunate, but I don't think this discussion is close to agreeing on some basic points, points that I think it would help to resolve before we try to find the perfect wording. At the very least, the RFC can hopefully provide consensus on those points.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but the poll does not address the most fundamental issues. It's a glaring entrenchment on the very problem it purports to solve - a premature poll with narrowly defined choices that leads to further alternatives and dissents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 the structured proposal above is perfectly delineated to move forward on this. I think a consensus will likely arise out of it, and we can move on from there. If necessary, we can solicit wider input from the applicable noticeboards. But no, I do not think we should abandon that format and to do so would be tendentious/counterproductive to achieving consensus, in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Forbes estimate repetition/concerns

Hello! I'm not sure precisely where to place the content, but it seems to me that, though cited to different articles, this page repeats Forbes's estimates of Trump's wealth in the wealth section. Now, arguably, the first comment is more of a mini-lead, especially because the second mention gets more detail, but given how short the section is, overall, I think it might be worth it to only include the estimates once. First reference:

Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities. Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.5 billion in 2015 and $3.1 billion in 2018.

The latter is cited to this Business Insider article.

Forbes estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product licensing income from $23 million to $3 million.

This sentence is cited to this Forbes article.

Just in case it concerns someone else: The identity of the dollar figures but variance in years here concerned me, though, upon further investigation ... I think it's okay? The second source (the Forbes article) was written in October 2018 and says:

His net worth, by our calculation, has dropped from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion the last two years, ....

I think the product-licensing info should be included, but I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about only including these numbers once. If we are using the first paragraph as a preview of the biggest points, we could perhaps phrase it differently? I.e. "Forbes estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018."?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)