Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 169

Archive 165

←

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

→

Archive 175

Consensus 25 and paywalled sources

Re: [1][2][3][4][5]

This consensus-by-edit-war needs to stop. After posting this, I will restore status quo ante pending talk page consensus to include the new content.

This is not an isolated exception case. The same issue exists for all paywalled sources, and there are quite a few. In my experience, Wikipedia does not worry about citing paywalled sources. Readers who do not wish to subscribe are apparently expected to trust that enough editors readers and editors do subscribe to satisfy WP:V. While some readers use citations to easily access "further reading", that is not the purpose of citations.

In any case, this addition does violate consensus 25 and should not be made without first amending that consensus. Process is important. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 15:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed. Besides paywalled sources, there are also printed sources that aren't available online and geo-blocked sources. Paywalled and geo-blocked sources are usually available on the Wayback Machine - many readers are probably familiar with it or, if not, they can ask about the cite on the Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:PAYWALL (part of V), by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL is about not rejecting reliable sources that are difficult or costly to access. That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether to make such sources easier to access by using an archived version that is not difficult or costly to access.

For reference, here's the proposed change in the cite.

From this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2024.

to this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved April 29, 2024.

I suggest clicking on the article link in each cite and seeing which is preferable. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been settled by Consensus #25, and it relates not to ease of access of sources but this superlong page being bogged down by becoming even longer. Why should we revisit Consensus #25? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion for consensus item 25 was about use of archived versions when the original version works just as well. That is not the case here. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment. As I previously said, this is not an isolated case and what we're really talking about is adding archive to all paywalled sources or none; there is no rationale for carving out an exception for this case. There are so many paywalled sources (all NYT and all WaPo, just for starters) that the former option would significantly defeat the purpose of #25. Per prior comments, I support the latter option: we don't need this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I've made a good case for the archived link to be included in the cite, as indicated above, and I'll wait to see if there is any support for it. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. If size is an issue, we should be cutting down on prosesize first and foremost, because that's what actually matters in the long run. Sure, archive parameters make the source code a little more cluttered, but ease of access to sources is more important IMO—I actively click on citations in order to read the source, and, when so many political newspapers are behind paywalls, having an archived version of a source that I can just click on aids efficiency. Cessaune [talk] 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. AFAICT, Bob does not accept that we're talking about far more than this one citation. It helps to be clear about the actual issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (WP:PLRT). The stated reason is prevention of link rot but the archiving also provides easy access to paywalled and geo-blocked sources, with or without an archive-url in the cite. We could add a note to the top of the Talk page with the url to the Wayback Machine for readers who are not familiar with it. I don’t see what’s so important about a source for one particular sentence that readers must be able to access it with one click. The issue here is also potentially adding up to 60,000 bytes to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 25 is fine. I've seen articles nearly double in size in one edit because of this practice of adding archive links for live articles. Properly-sourced content is much more important than providing an extra method of accessing the source. We need to keep our long articles accessible to readers, and archive-link bloat makes it much harder to download them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x made edits like the proposed edit after consensus item #25 was in place. diff diff diff Edit summaries were "Add archive-url (paywalled source)" and "Replace with accessible cites". Those cites are still in the article. 145 171 489 and appear to be the only such type of cites in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops — touché. I removed all three. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I just now restored them since they are part of the discussion and have been around for years. Again note that you put them in while Consensus item #25 was in place. You might want to explain that. Also, you might want to explain why you thought improving the accessibility was an improvement back then but you think differently now. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have never had a time limit for correction of process errors. And it's entirely unreasonable to expect an editor to remember what was in their mind for a few minutes years ago. If you really need a reason, call it temporary insanity or mere brain fart. So what? To err is human; the difference is that you're erring now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember what I was thinking in 2021 when I made those entries. I don't know where to get ahold of sackcloth or ashes, so mea culpa and the reverted attempts to right the wrong will have to do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Or, maybe, I'm three years older now and know better? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

True. Editors evolve with time. I certainly have. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What's your point, Bob? Process errors were made years ago, and now you won't allow them to be corrected? Is this supposed to strengthen your position in this discussion? If so, it does not; it merely adds disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Jaysus, really? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps I'm being naive but the issue seems straightforward. Yet, of course, we are in the realm of the TAW, for Trump Article Warning, whereby Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy.

When the source is not freely available and has not yet been archived, we mark as appropriate the link's url-access. When a source has been archived and the archive is freely available online, we link to both the original, non-freely accessible webpage and to the archive, with the former's url-access properly marked. Whence all the excitement?

P.S. Bob K31416 offered above a simple and elegant example that deserves wide support.

P.P.S. The point of WP:PAYWALL is equally straightforward: Do not be reluctant to use sources that are behind subscription paywalls, only available for a fee, etc. It does not offer any guidance on the marking of sources or using both direct & archived links, because the whole matter is obvious and there is no need for any such guidance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Bob and Gnome. The size concerns are overblown. Riposte97 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97: It would help if you, Cessaune, Bob K31416, and any others would clarify your positions here. Do you support amending #25 to allow Bob's proposed technique for live paywalled sources, or cancelling #25 entirely? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC) And The Gnome. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. I had an edit that was reverted and I tried to discuss it in a previous section, and all I got was more reversions without them coming to the Talk page to respond to my points. When in my mind I had given up, another editor restored my edit again and you then started this section. So far it looks like there are 3 other articulate editors here who support my edit. I like that. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. As I suspected. As I've said, there is no rationale for a single-case change (I see little evidence that the 3 other articulate editors support a single-case change). Unless you can persuasively articulate one, that will never fly, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, the size concerns are NOT overblown. The article is currently at 411,927 bytes. Allowing archive links for live URLs could easily add 200,000 bytes in one edit. That's a problem for many mobile users, and there are much larger articles that would be impacted even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My memory's fuzzy, but I think 200,000 is way high. In any case, that wasn't the only basis for #25; massive clutter of the wikitext in the edit box was another. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The last few times the bot "rescued n sources and tagged 0 as dead", it added 57,585, 57,586, and 57,577 bytes, respectively. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was totally guessing based on previous occasions where articles suddenly balooned. If EVERY single ref received this treatment, I doubt I'm very far off. If anything, I'm way too low. Doubling the size could happen. How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? Then we'd know for sure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't the bot add archive for EVERY single ref? How so? How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? If you have the required several free hours, knock yourself out. It's a monumental task without the help of a script. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was done with scripts or bots, so not a lot of work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, it was done with a script-based (I assume) bot, and added about 57,000 bytes as shown by Space4T. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that these folks are trying to make an estimate for all live links, which is different from trying to make an estimate for just paywalled live links. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a point I'm about to make below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand: Immediately after the latest bot visit, the article had 844 citations and |archive-url= occurred only 304 times. That suggests that I'm full of it. 57,585 / 304 * 844 = 159,874, so you may be closer to right than wrong. Now I haven't a clue what the bot was doing, or how we could ever add archive for everything. Anyway, unless we're talking about a total repeal of #25, this is fairly academic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The bots added archive-urls to 290+ sources out of the more than 800. I don't think the dead sources that have archive-urls and sources that aren't available online add up to 500+ but is it worth the effort to check? 57,000 additional bytes and the added clutter in the edit box are argument enough for me to keep #25 as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, the problem discussed in Consensus #25 came about originally when a bot was used to add archived links en masse to all live links, not just paywalled links. I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. I'm just looking to make an edit. If you think it requires a change in Consensus #25, then just add that archives for sites requiring registration or subscription is being allowed provisionally, as long as it does not result in excessive archiving. You could probably tweak this text as needed. I think that's about it for me. So long, thanks, and good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. It's being addressed only because some editors' comments suggest that they oppose #25 outright. I get that you don't. You could probably tweak this text as needed. Sure, if someone can suggest how we would make the decision to include archive parameters or not—beyond "one or more editors want to include them" (I just don't like the omission of the archive parameters). After all this discussion, after multiple requests to do so, you still haven't said what justifies an exception for your case, let alone future others. If you can't do so, perhaps backing away is the wise choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't think of a reason to carve out an exception for this specific cite. It's got to be all or nothing. Cessaune [talk] 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider the flip side of the coin you propose. If we did that, it would result in protracted discussions about each new case, with one side always asking, Whence all the excitement? (for evidence of that, we need look no further than #37 and #58, both sufficiently vague as to do more harm than good). That's the opposite of what consensus items seek to achieve, which is to reduce, not create, opportunities for disagreements resulting in protracted discussions. "Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy". That's a fact of life for those who choose to play in this sandbox, but it would be far worse if we didn't use the consensus list to mitigate it. Each item represents something we don't need to spend a lot of time debating, for the most part. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty straightforward exception to 25 to say 'except where it assists in bypassing a paywall'. In the current case, doing so has clear utility. Inferring that I or anyone else has argued for a repeal of 25 is a misunderstanding. Riposte97 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead or paywalled. Cessaune [talk] 02:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

^ precisely. Riposte97 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been referring to the single-case exception that Bob has sought throughout this debate, essentially saying that we're making a mountain out of a molehill. What you propose is not an exception but an amendment, and I have no problem with an amendment from a process standpoint. I continue to oppose the amendment, for two reasons.

First, it at least has the potential to largely defeat the purposes of #25. Whether we would ever actually add enough archives for that to be a significant problem is beside the point for me; the point is that we could. It's not that hard to imagine an editor getting a wild hair and spending weeks adding archives for every paywalled source in the article, and they would be completely within their right to do so per this amendment. Nobody could even object, let alone stand a chance of prevailing.

Second, it's inconsistent with core principles of WP:V, to wit: (1) paywalled sources are just fine for verifiability, and sources needn't be accessible to everyone to achieve it, and (2) verifiability is the sole reason for citations, despite some readers' and editors' desire to use them to access further reading. Editors who seek to "verify the verifiability" may subscribe to the source or use Wayback Machine without the benefit of the direct link in a citation. Yes, that costs a little money or takes a little more time (less than a minute in most cases), but it beats the alternative in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For that matter, we could work out a system to share subscriptions to the major source outlets. Not by sharing passwords, which in my opinion would pose ethical problems (essentially stealing), but by making ourselves available to "verify verifiability" for our respective subscribed outlets upon requests from other editors. I'm already subscribed to NYT and have been for years, spending something like $15/mo. I use it almost exclusively as my personal go-to for news, but that could change. The only problem would be that verifiability is not always clear-cut and my idea of verifiability may differ from some others'. I suppose I could copy-and-paste relevant excerpts from the sources where needed.

That said, it might be easier to just use Wayback Machine as per above. It would be faster in most cases, since one wouldn't have to wait for me or another NYT subscriber to show up and handle their NYT request. I dunno; just an idle thought and I'm half tempted to remove. I sometimes can't see the flaws in an idea until I write it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a solution is outside the scope of this discussion IMO. Cessaune [talk] 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree if it weren't a bad idea to begin with. Probably should have removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the amendment, too, per article size vs. minor inconvenience, and how many readers are even affected, i.e., read cited sources? Most online publications let you read one or two articles for free (another one or two if you clear the browser cache and close and restart your browser:). That includes current articles in WaPo (subscription currently $70 plus applicale sales tax per year), but they require readers to sign up for a free account if they want to read older articles. The NYT is $8 every 4 weeks, games and recipes not included; I vaguely remember another editor mentioning some time ago that the NYT allows free accounts to read two articles per month. The Wall Street Journal is the big exception, no free articles, and 99.999% of their articles archived on the Wayback Machine are also paywalled. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Biden article seems to have nearly all of the ref links archived. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And I could point to any number of articles that don't. Other stuff exists, and what editors choose to do at Biden has zero bearing on Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the overall management of the article is better over there. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we suck. You just can't help yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the subject has a less convoluted and/or controversial bio than this one. Or people keep siccing their favorite bot on the page (#IABot (v2.0.9.5)_1, #IABot (v2.0.9.5)_2) to rescue sources that don’t need rescuing and tag 0 as dead, and nobody has objected because they haven't managed to break the page yet. Many of the 646 cites (180 fewer than this page) don’t have archive-urls, and I don’t really see the point of adding this one, for example. Or what Mandruss said — we suck. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Trump did not graduate Wharton with a degree in Economics

"Donald J Trump graduated Wharton with a B.A. in Real Estate, which was awarded on May 20, 1968" says Ron Ozio, Penn's Director of Media Relations. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/09/14/donald-trump-at-wharton-university-of-pennsylvania/ Sam8988378 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Economics - see pg. 21 pf in UPenn's 212th Commencement for the Conferring of Degrees, one of the two sources for the degree in our article. Ozio probably meant that Trump's focused area of study (Wharton calls them concentrations) was real estate, or he may have been misquoted. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

North Korea in the lead, again

Riposte97, re this edit. The RfC closing says: There's a rough consensus to include North Korea in the lead, focused on the meetings with Kim and and some degree of clarification that there haven't been clear results of those meetings. I clarified the initial wording of consensus #44 (The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim, and stating that they haven't produced clear results) by including some degree of clarification. During the four years since item #44 was added, it was never interpreted as meaning that we have to use "clear results". (What is #article-section-source-editor referring to?) The lead sentence initially said that "talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019". It was changed to "negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down" in January 2021, and to the current wording in July 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, any of those previous forms would be more appropriate. Those actually conform with the RfC. The current wording goes further than either the consensus or RS. In saying 'but made no progress on denuclearisation' we seem to contradict the preceding clause - after all, isn't a first meeting a form of progress?

I note that the editor who changed it to the current wording was outvoted in the RfC, and appears to have inappropriately sought to revise the sentence.

Unless there is some objection, I will reinstate the previous wording. Riposte97 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is objection, a revert of it is an objection. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

isn't a first meeting a form of progress? No. NK halting production and testing would have been progress, NK reducing its arsenal would have been more progress, NK declunearizing would have been success. Those would also have been clear results, IMO and apparently also the opinions of the five editors who made the initial edits (first, second second) and the two revisions (see above). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page:

1. initial edit on May 22, 2020 Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.
2. correction on May 22, 2020 Trump met three times with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, but talks on denuclearization broke down in 2019.
3. edit on January 13, 2021 He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but negotiations on denuclearization eventually broke down.
4. edit on July 15, 2021 He met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but without any progress on denuclearization.
5. edit on July 15, 2021 Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.
6. Your version: He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times, but those talks yielded no clear results.

I added an edit I missed earlier (#5). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I already said I am fine with those previous forms. In case there is ambiguity in what I wrote above, I am proposing a reversion to either #2 or #3. #1 contains an obvious error. However, we have had an RFC on this. This shouldn't really be up for debate. Riposte97 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

isn't a first meeting a form of progress? No, it was appeasement. Love letters etc. We kept it short and brief, commensurate with the outcome. For detail see the sub-article. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, we already did an RFC on this. You lost. Trying to relitigate it is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, I will wait twenty-four hours, then restore the wording of edit #3 above. Riposte97 (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The one cited in consensus #44. I quoted the closer's closing summary in full in my first post in this section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So all it says is we should mention it, well as your edit does it seems to be complaint with it (by the way I keep seeing "consensus X" what is this referring to, the achieving page?). Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It refers to one of the numbered items in the Current consensus section at the top of this page. Each one has a link, sometimes more than one, to the RfC(s) or discussion(s) which resulted in the consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the term "negotiations" apply to Trump's meetings with Kim? In the body we say that no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day. One of the cites is this scathing NYT article. It talks about "meetings" with "fabulous theatrics" and "talks" that "quickly stalled over how to enforce a vaguely worded agreement". Trump's professed aim was "to negotiate true disarmament, which he predicted would begin imminently", and, instead, he managed to elevate Kim's global status while NK continued to advance its nuclear armament. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy for it to say 'but talks on denuclearisation eventually broke down.' Riposte97 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length - see the talk page archives.

What "talks"? The WP:WEIGHT of non-contemporaneous mainstream sources do not describe any talks, negotiation, or other serious substantive engagement. That's why the article does not mischaracterize this charade as any such event. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refer me to those discussions. We could word it 'but did not reach an agreement on denuclearisation'. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO You reverted my edit claiming it was 'contrary to recent talk discussion'. Pretty fresh of you, even after reverting, to still fail to respond to my suggestion here. So, what exactly is wrong with my proposed wording? Your revert to your own wording is contrary to an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC mentioned in #44 does not dictate exact wording, it states "...and some degree of clarification that there haven't been clear results of those meetings." Neither your wording nor their wording runs contrary to this, so it is simply a matter of consensus. Since you appear to be the one introducing a change to the status quo, the onus is on you. Not them. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the RfC settled on saying 'there haven't been clear results'. However, I'd say it's pretty clear that labelling the meetings a failure in their stated objective is actually stating a clear result. It's also, in my view (for all that matters) just factually incorrect. The meetings resulted in a joint declaration committing inter alia to the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Riposte97 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A lack of a result is not in itself a result. If that is what your argument rests on, then I think we're good on this tangent. Zaathras (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I still believe that 'making no progress' is a result, in the same way it is when you attempt any task, but I'll go with consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Knauss or Knavs? What do birth certificates say?

Knauss or Knavs? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167#Melania in the infobox. Birth name is not always the best choice. If we went with birth name, it would be Melanija Knavs, which would be a bit confusing considering that everybody knows her as Melania. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is biased and false

"Trump refused to concede after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud, and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This section clearly shows left wing bias. Fix plz. 2600:100F:B1B6:7945:0:1A:847:5801 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very much unbiased and is a well-documented event. The Capitol Riots were reported by multiple reliable, neutral sources. Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it biased and misleading to say that the capitol rioters led to "multiple deaths." All the deaths were natural causes, sucide, or Ashley Babbit. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We spent a long time discussing this exact issue: [6]. The consensus isn't going to shift any time soon. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

So we have "...many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths...". That looks like Trump supporters killed multiple people when they attacked the Capitol. As you noted, this language was supported by a consensus of editors here. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it looks like multiple people died when they attacked the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in" is misleading and should be removed[7] soibangla (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of this nonspecific bias allegation, please suggest a specific, policy-based improvement, one that is backed up by reliable sources — see Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias for more information (consensus #61). (Soibangla, your source says they take no position in the debate over whom to include in the deaths from the riots.) The wording in the lead is based on the Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack subsection in the body of our article: According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died.. The cited ABC News article says that "five people died during or after the attack". The New York Times source cites the bipartisan Senate report which found that "at least seven people had lost their lives in connection with the Jan. 6 attack". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We should be concerned with what the text conveys to the reader, rather than whether it is techically correct. A typical reader would interpret the text to mean that the victims died as result of injuries suffered during the incident. In comparison, we might say that 5,000 Americans died as a result of the War in Iraq and not include the 30,000 who died from suicide once they returned to the U.S.

Also, "multiple" probably fails MOS:WEASEL.

If you want a suggested replacement, I would say, "resulting in the death of one demonstrator and the subsequent death of x. no. of police officers through natural causes and suicide. TFD (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I like TFD's solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Did we mention the 140 or so officers injured? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Consensus #62 says that "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". That also rules out mentioning "natural causes and suicide" in the lead — not in the body, ergo not in the lead. resulting in multiple deaths is short and concise. What's weaselly about multiple? Multiple seems justified for six at the scene or line-of-duty (don't know about the status rulings on the three other officers who committed suicide in January and July 2021). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally everyone agreed, and you had to step in citing some consensus that you probably heavily influenced. Are you this opposed to adding like ten words to make the article more fair? DannyM999x (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the discussion and RfC, if you care to read them. As it stands, we discussed the issue to death and then some (end of May to near-mid July). some consensus—hahahaha no. In total, 275 comments from multiple users. Drafts and rewrites and more rewrites. Infinitely spiraling discussions. No, #62 isn't "some consensus". Cessaune [talk] 04:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Every death has a natural cause. In this instance the natural causes were the result of the insurrectionists' attacks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in multiple deaths." This is misleading. The natural causes deaths were not related to the capitol attack. Suicide cannot be blamed on a capitol attack. This is like saying that if you serve in Iraq but die from alcohol abuse a month later after leaving which started during deployment, you "died from service", which is totally misleading and disrespectful to war heros who die in combat. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are liberal Wikipedia admins and editors putting up so much of a fight to prevent adding a few phrases of qualifying information? Simply mentioning the causes of death in a few words in the lead (where most people only read it there) can prevent slandering a living person biography. Since when is Wikipedia the place for witholding information or burying it from view for transparently political purposes? Please include this critical info. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

[According to the above source] Four members of the mob died (Trump supporters).

One officer died of stroke, and four officers committed suicide (as long as 6 months later). 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some states have already investigated the matter and discovered that there was election fraud benefiting Joe Biden. A report was put out that indicated Donald Trump should have been the current sitting president of the United Staes of America. Thanks to Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau can do whatever he want. 174.92.195.101 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

do you have any reliable sources? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^Ex-Mørtis 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. 2601:985:B7F:9DF0:44E1:D84E:D223:7E63 (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Loans from Dad

"Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of one million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company."

Neutral? 2603:8080:5802:B303:EC0D:CA46:A3CD:1A4B (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's what the NYT sources behind the sentence say (I haven't checked), then what about it is not neutral? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's neutral because that's what the sources say. Failed to repay: In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show. (NYT). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the old lead?

I noticed that there's now tags, odd phrasings (ex: "...which cut taxes and set the financial penalty to nil for the individual health insurance mandate..."), and multiple talk page posts over the lead. Was there a previous decision to move away from the lead as it existed for a very long time? BootsED (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a consensus, just some back-and-forth over alleged excessive details (see this and this and this discussion) and not enough opposition to semantic pedantry (or violation of 24-hr BRD restrictions, for that matter): lead, body, rvt, attempt to compromise, whatev. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Could you remove the “severely” from the de-regulation section (regarding firearm policy), it comes off as biased. ArcTheMedic (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IS this what the sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Fixed the citation's url.[8] The source does say "severely" mentally ill. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here's context, "...including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns."

Mandruss, You might want to check other reliable sources. Examples of reliable sources that have descriptions without "severely", or words to that effect are, NBC 2019 NBC 2017 CNN ABC AP It looks like the given Politico source is unique or in the minority of reliable sources that use "severely". The only other source I found with "severely", or words to that effect, was a congressman's website [9] where he was advocating for his bill. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Mental illness" can include any mental health condition, like low level depression and anxiety. "Severe mental illness" is a term that focuses on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, PTSD, etc. Background checks don't prevent people with all mental illness from buying a firearm, just severe conditions, especially if it has resulted in hospitalizations. Stories on the 2016 rule are not clear about the distinction, because journalists are not subject matter experts on this, but the rules are clearly not meant to bar anyone with some social phobia or fear of flying from owning a gun. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob, it should be noted that this was a misuse of the edit request facility, which is not an alternative way to start a discussion thread. If discussion is or might be required, the OP should click "New section" at the top of this page.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for editors who do this, since it shows they haven't bothered to read the instructions before using edit request (or they have read them and ignored them). That's disrespectful to everybody, only starting with the editors who developed the edit request facility and painstakingly wrote those instructions.

It's not like an editor has to be aware of the WP:EDITREQ page. Adequate instructions are prominently presented in the edit request path. To see this, log out and click "View source" at the top of the article page. Included in the instructions is: "What an edit request IS NOT for: [...] making a comment or starting a discussion: go to the talk page [...]".

Now that you have morphed this into a discussion, it has to stay on the page until 14 days idle; otherwise, it could have been manually archived today, per #13. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Banning mass edits, Phase 1

See #Lead: Consensus 43 vio? for limited-participation discussion of a proposed ban of mass edits, such as this one, at this article. Radical, perhaps, but when has that stopped this pack of rebellious anarchists? See the linked discussion for (imo) strong supporting arguments.

A big hurdle is finding workable language for a consensus item. "No mass edits" would likely be unconstructive and ineffective. That's the sole purpose of this thread; if workable language can be hammered out, we can proceed separately with a !vote. If not, any further discussion would be pointless.

Categorical Opposers of the whole concept can sit this one out, as can Supporters who just want to say they support. Both groups should wait for the !vote, if any occurs. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Term suggestions?

Myri-edit, poly-edit, multi-edit, vari-edit, numer-edit, omni-edit...and forge-edit XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, I just can't think of a way to codify something like this. It's just going to be another consensus #58, except a lot more relevant to everyday tasks, and a lot more spiky. Bytesize? Or does someone have to specifically look at someone's edit to decide whether they broke the rule? Cessaune [talk] 01:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune What if the parameters were limited to individual sections? DN (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider phrasing the consensus item as advice:

When possible, avoid large edits consisting of multiple individual changes. Instead, break it up into multiple edits. Such large edits can be difficult to sort out the acceptable from the less acceptable and may be reverted.

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Now we're talkin'. That's a good start. It reads like a guideline, and we revert per guidelines all the time. We might need some way to convey that (like guideline-based reverts) such a revert is not unchallengeable on this page. Some edits, hopefully uncommon, may fall into a gray area that requires a bit of discussion. If we ended up with too much such discussion, well, we could cancel the consensus item and say we tried. Nothing should be set in stone. I much prefer "try it and see" over crystal ball opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If my gray-area edit gets reverted, am I going to break it down into smaller pieces despite disagreeing with the revert, or start a discussion about it? Lacking a need to win and a battleground mentality, and assuming good faith on the part of the reverter (and wishing to save time), I suspect the former. And I'll think twice about future gray-area edits, erring on the side of smaller edits. I don't think I'm atypical in that respect, at least at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoid edits with several individual factual changes. Such edits may be reverted in toto if they make it difficult for other editors to separate the acceptable from the less acceptable. Instead, make separate edits for individual changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpfully "mass" edits needn't be factual changes. Mere copy edits may be a mix of the acceptable and the less acceptable. (And "factual change" is a fuzzy concept anyway: there are disagreements about whether a change is a factual change or a mere copy edit.) Of course, an editor could always opt for partial revert or further improvement over full revert, neither invoking this consensus item.

Now, a new consensus item should not preclude "mass" changes of the same type, such as conforming the article to a particular MoS guideline. It's hard to object to only part of such an edit. I don't know that this item would need such a fine point on it. On the other hand, I have just recently said re a different issue that we should comply with the letter of an item or change it.[10]

This is a complicated business, no question, but worth it imo. We've seen encouraging progress with only one day and five editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, a mass edit could in theory be reverted, but wouldn't be required to be? Just clarifying. Cessaune [talk] 03:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds about right. If you object to only part of an edit, and you're not in the mood for a partial revert (you shouldn't be required to go to that extra effort just because the bold editor failed to go to the smaller extra effort of splitting), then revert. Otherwise, don't. It should go without saying that the item could be abused in any of several ways, and it would hardly be unusual in that respect. For example, it could be invoked when the partial revert would be really easy. Solution: peer pressure. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the logic of your second sentence makes sense. If you make three changes in a single edit and I revert two of them in another edit, that's more effort from me than a one-click revert, but it's less effort from me than you put into making all three. And if I agree with one of your changes, I shouldn't be reverting it just because I'm "not in the mood". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I won't argue with those points. The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. Your edit put Space4T in the position of having to manually revert certain parts of the edit, whereas undo would've likely worked given that he's here every day like clockwork. He would have had to manually revert them individually, one change item at a time, so as to facilitate one-issue-one-thread discussion, and because each one needed a separate rationale for reversion. How did it make sense for him to bear that burden, when you could have fairly easily split your edit? What is your compelling argument against splitting? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all. I don't think this makes sense either. You posit that if Space4T had responded "correctly" he would have reverted those edits individually with separate rationales. If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways, and in that case would not even have had the opportunity to bundle several with the same rationale (which seems to have been the case, from his explanation above), as he would if the original edits were combined.

If an editor bears the burden of making multiple good-faith changes, it seems quite reasonable that a reverter should bear the burden of objecting to whichever of those they'd want to object to, rather than asking the editor to exert greater effort to make it easier for the reverter to erase their labour. Bundling changes in this way is common practice and would need a compelling argument to justify "outlawing"; I'm not seeing one here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways Quite true. I didn't mean to say that would've been part of the extra work for him; merely that it was part of the need for the extra work for him. Confused yet? Bundling changes in this way is common practice This article is probably unusual in its highly developed processes that have evolved over the years, and in its commitment to them (the consensus list is only part of it). It seems to have a culture and personality all its own, and editors must think it's superior (or at least no worse) or the culture and personality wouldn't have survived for so long. It's not like a handful of process wonk weirdos are to blame for creating this and keeping it going; I've seen a dozen or two "regulars" come and go since 2015. Few voices have said that this article can't innovate in these areas because new arrivals can't be asked to adapt in relatively small ways. This might help explain why bundling doesn't work well here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think you're here to help work out language for the consensus item. I've asked everyone else to stand by. No consensus is being sought here beyond the language itself. Not that I don't enjoy your company, of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Manually reverting a part of a large edit is more difficult than using UNDO to revert the part if it was a separate edit. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion:

1) An edit should not be able to be reverted simply because it is a mass edit. A user who wishes to revert must first provide a valid rationale in their edit summary, AND cite the consensus item.

2) An editor is allowed to revert a revert that simply cites the consensus item without any further rationale. Cessaune [talk] 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What kind of further rationale did you have in mind? "rv per consensus 66 because I disagree with only part of this large edit and I feel a partial revert would be too difficult to do properly" ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just the typical stuff. Like, why you disagree with the edit. For example, you couldn't say "reverting per consensus #66" and have that be your entire edit summary. Cessaune [talk] 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the point of the item in the first place. You have one reason for opposing change item A, another for change item B, and six more for change items C through H. It would be entirely impractical to put all of your individual rationales in a single edit summary. There's a length limit, never mind the difficulty of doing so.

Anyway, if you were to do that, you wouldn't need to invoke this item, right? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify. If an edit consists of A, B, and C, the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them, and make that clear in the edit summary. Such an edit summary would look something like this: revert — edit C is not applicable per [policy]; invoking consensus #66. In my mind, you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit, and you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit even if you thought that part of the edit failed to comply with some rule, unless you explicitly state this in the edit summary.

If I disagreed with item A and B, but not C, yes, I think I would have to put all of [my] individual rationales in a single edit summary. Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. And hyperbole ignores reality—no one is compacting eight different edits into one edit. Maybe four, max. Explaining a rationale for three separate types of edits isn't nearly as tedious as doing the same for eight. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit - Of course. The consensus item could state that explicitly, although I think it could be made apparent without doing so.

Hyperbole? I see upwards of ten distinct unrelated changes in Nikkimaria's edit, and one could quite reasonably object to any one of them without objecting to others (even nearby others). And, as I say below, one could object to all of the changes, so we're talking about potentially upwards of ten rationales. And we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. No hyperbole here; if anything, the opposite, whatever the word is for that.

the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them - Sure, if you think it's useful to require a rationale for at least one objection, I have no problem with that despite not really seeing the point. Requiring more than one, no. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Ten is a stretch. You're telling me you consider the reworking of the felony sentence four distinct unrelated edits? Because, if that's the case, and a consensus #66 existed, you could revert based on that rationale, which I would decidedly not support. Cessaune [talk] 00:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointless to argue this point. we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. Literally five times that size. No hyperbole. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. They don't need to know that at this juncture. The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. Then they can address them. You're "opposing" the bundling—a process objection, nothing more. When we revert a violation of the 24-hour rule, does our editsum say anything about the content involved? No, because it's irrelevant to the revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The 24-hour rule is an Arbitration remedy. We revert in that case because we are required to. In this case, there is no requirement to revert. So the two are fundamentally different.

a process objection, nothing more—you say that as if we aren't defining process right now. Cessaune [talk] 14:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What would've been your response if I had omitted those last two sentences? Just curious, since the rest of the comment is salient but ignored (aside from your last sentence, which I can't make much sense of). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. Your proposal creates an intermediary step that wastes time and is tedious for both the editor and the reverter. Cessaune [talk] 00:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a length limit -- we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's -- The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns [...] -- You provide the three (or twelve) edit summaries after the split, which is the point of the split and the consensus item. Intermediary step, yes. Takes more time for the bold editor, yes, and the way to avoid that is to effing refrain from mass edits. Takes more time for the reverter, not so much. Wastes that time, no.

Now we're getting circular. Don't make me invoke IDHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, those last two sentences have really pissed me off. I accepted your compromise below; you asked me a question after I had already agreed with your proposal. I answered truthfully as to my opinion on the topic. So, respectfully, how are we getting circular? I've already agreed with you! I privately disagree, but I am willing to forgo all that in the name of compromise, and I feel like I made that pretty obvious below.

And fucking IDHT? Am I going against an established consensus? Or are you suggesting that your opinion is shared by the broader community, despite the fact that it's mainly been a two-person discussion this entire time? Or is it something else? Do I lack competence? I don't get it. Even if I don't get your point (which I do) how is IDHT in any way appropriate? Cessaune [talk] 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to counter each other's points or accept them and let them shape subsequent discussion, not simply ignore them and continue to argue as if they hadn't been made. That's how I interpret IDHT—right or wrong. Otherwise, if we're now spelling out "fucking", it's time to step away for awhile. I'm beginning to care less about this anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpret IDHT however you want, but don't go around essentially accusing editors of disruptive editing for relatively weak reasons. As it stands, I don't believe that I was ignoring your points, and, if I was, I didn't intend to. But I really feel like I wasn't. Cessaune [talk] 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Trying again after sleep.

Your comment, If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change. betrays your failure to understand my point, The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. You're improperly conflating and mixing the content objections with the process objection.

You're also stuck on "three edits" when I've already made the point that it's sometimes a lot more than three—we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's—and too many to cram into a single editsum. You have neither countered that point nor accepted it.

Hence my frustration.

Yes, I'm backing up after prematurely agreeing to the compromise. Apologies for that.

I hope this provides some clarification; but I don't think I could be any clearer. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Who defines whether this is a process thing, or a content thing, or both? We do. You can wish for it to be a process thing only, but, as long as there is a requirement to state objection to at least one item, it's both a content and a process issue. And I feel like the idea that The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns is a simple matter of opinion, an opinion I don't fully agree with.

2) It was apparently Pointless to argue this point, so I let it drop. If it's true that we've seen edits literally five times larger than Nikkimaria's, I'm in the wrong, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

so I let it drop. And continued to argue as if the point hadn't been made.

Since we appear to have irreconcilable differences, and there is no other participation, it is now a dead issue. Thanks for playing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss I think that could be premature. what leads you to believe the other editors have moved on. I still see a use for discussing mass-edit parameters and limitations. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to discuss them. I didn't mean to imply that I have any authority to end a discussion under these circumstances; if I wanted to do that, I would've closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the item could also be invoked when you object to all of the bold mass edit. So I've been wrong to say that "part of" "only part of" is a requirement. The point is the difficulty of individual manual reverts. I don't think either of the two language proposals (Bob & Space4T) take this into account. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Simple: you need to object to at least a portion of the mass edit to invoke the consensus item. Cessaune [talk] 14:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify. I've already said I could live with a requirement to state objection to at least one of the change items. Will you accept that compromise? If so, doesn't that moot most of this recent back-and-forth? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure; yes. Cessaune [talk] 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

2020 Arizona campaign

@Bob K31416: Re this revert - "illustrate" per Merriam Webster definition "to provide with visual features intended to explain or decorate". The image contains nothing illustrative of either Arizona or the 2020 campaign. It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016, and the article already has a 2016 Arizona campaign image that at least says "Arizona". The 2020 campaign article has comparatively few images, and if you have side-by-side images — captioned that they were taken in Nevada on October 27 and in Arizona on the next day — it shows the frenetic pace shortly before the election and enlivens a long scroll down section after section of campaign details. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your remarks and actions seem inconsistent and incorrect. For example, you wrote, "It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016..." Then why did you put it in the campaign article in the section 2020 campaign developments>October 2020 with the caption "Trump at October 28 rally at Phoenix airport, Arizona"? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The caption is based on the photographer's summary. As I said, I'm fine with the image as decoration in the campaign article which has comparatively few images. In this article, it doesn't add any information, and, IMO, sizewise we don't have room for pure decoration. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Space4T. This article's images already provide more than ample information about Trump's current/recent physical appearance. When there aren't enough informative images available, we have to accept some level of decoration to keep an article from seeming dry and uninviting; but this article is already doing that without this image. While I'm too lazy to do so (semi-retired), I encourage editors to work harder to find informative images for this article. Even a photo of Trump outside of a conservative business suit would be some improvement.

As for the campaign article or any other, that is not a topic for this page. And I'm intensely uninterested in (subjectively) inconsistent and incorrect remarks and actions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Flagged For Non Neutrality

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

---

I have been reading through a number of chats on wikipedia, and this one should be flagged for violating the Neutrality policy, especially given the calls for neutrality in the chat have been rejected 2601:246:5A83:D090:9C52:9A1E:C889:AB5A (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "chats", so I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean discussion on this talk page, that's not required to be "neutral". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Please note that this was a bad faith copypasta thread. The IP pasted the exact same message into multiple unrelated Talk pages in a lazy attempt to cause disruption. We do not need to waste our time dealing with trolls. Any further such threads should simply be removed per WP:DENY. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. Now we have to look at the contribs for context, rather than taking the post at face value. Considering that so little disruption was actually caused, I'm not sure it's worth it (and in fact the point of consensus 61 is to minimize said disruption without unnecessary hostility, and it's been successful at doing so). DENY is there for articles that don't have a consensus 61 or something similar (basically all other articles, I suspect). It would've helped if you had referred to the contribs in your editsum; you gave us zero information to work with, and we couldn't have known that your competence is beyond challenge.

It should be understood that we outright-remove plenty of bias complaints, such as the one that preceded this one. The difference is whether there was "clearly bad faith". To make editors go research contribs before making the decision is itself a form of disruption.

And besides, was this editor's behavior materially different from adding {{POV}} to multiple articles? "Flagging" things the wrong way (being un-extended-confirmed, they couldn't have done it the right way), being wrong about the easily-misunderstood policy, and being a mere IPv6 editor with unknown other editing history do not constitute trolling or "clearly bad faith". They were not verbally abusive or libtard-hating over-the-top disrespectful like the other guy. Give a little respect, receive a little respect in return.

Trolling is posting for the sole purpose of causing disruption; it's about intent, not effect (troll, sense 2). There is little to no evidence that was this editor's motive, and per AGF we grant the benefit of the doubt at this article. If you're going to use the word around these parts, please use it correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Add to lede that Trump is a convicted felon

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

---

Now that Trump has been convicted it should be added to his lede as it's an unprecedented and important piece of information about him. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Some people (especially IPs who have small edit counts) may not know what an RfC is. Clarification helps. :) WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Convicted felon

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

---

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

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

It's not complicated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial.[11] --Tataral (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The way it`s written now is just plain bad writing..something along the lines of he is the only president to be convicted of 34 charges involving Stormy Daniels which implies other presidents may have been convicted of other felonies..or not...he is the only president to have been convicted of a felony period which is how it should read Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC74:6240:4518:BB2B:9BB0:A19 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

No, it’s spelled “lede.” And what you did right there is spelled “own goal.” Itsspelledlede (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Restore deleted categories

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

---

Please add the following categories back into the article. They were removed as "irrelevant" and "redundant", but they are most definitely not. [[Category:21st-century American criminals]] [[Category:New York (state) politicians convicted of crimes]] [[Category:American politicians convicted of fraud]] 66.69.214.204 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Convicted felon

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

---

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

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

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

Funny though it is, it's not really a major defining moment of his life. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal information infobox template

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

---

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

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

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

I added this infobox in the 'Investigations' 'Hush money' section a few hours ago.SandRand97 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead: Consensus 43 vio?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Zaathras: Re: [12][13] Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Proposal for the first paragraph

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

---

Do you support or oppose this being the first paragraph of the article?

«Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is the first former president in United States history to be convicted of a crime.» Esterau16 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC this topic is already being discussed at § RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence - and even though that's about the first sentence, it is clear that many are discussing whether it fits in elsewhere on that discussion, and so it should not be discussed further outside that discussion for now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per Berchanhimez Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Those are simple, straightforward facts.

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

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

These key facts have been added to the lead section, which has a whole paragraph relating to Trump's legal issues, including the facts that he's been convicted of falsifying records and that he's been found liable for sexual abuse. I don't think there's any real controversy here about whether these things are true, or whether they're significant. The question currently being discussed is whether the felony conviction is significant enough to justify being placed in the first paragraph. I think it is, and I hope the consensus will reflect that. But I also think there are valid points being made against it, by people who are not partisan hacks, in the RfC discussion above. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Photo is Not the Most Appropriate Choice

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

---

"Official portrait, 2017"

This photo is a poor choice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Donald Trump's historic notability is not merely that he served as Potus. Unlike all other 44 people who have served as Potus, Trump is the ONLY ONE who has been indicted, arrested, and convicted. Therefore the far more appropriate choice for the top photo selected for this article would be one which instantly, at a single glance, communicates this notability.

No other Potus has had their MUGSHOT taken. No other Potus has had photos taken of them inside a courtroom as a criminal defendant. Even a photo of him arguing about his innocence would be far more appropriate.

Let's revise this with the proper sense of historical context that Wikipedia readers are due. --Concord19 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-starter, but good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-starter? Are you trying to say this issue has been hashed out previously? Today this man is a CONVICTED FELON. Whatever arguments had been presented in past years, past months, or past weeks need to be re-evaluated. --Concord19 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic and has a blatant political motive reeking of anti-Trump bias. We don't do that here. Go advocate for something that stands a chance in hell of being accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My flag here has been an advocacy for NPOV. Fact: Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Fact 2: No other Potus has ever been so much as indicted on a single misdemeanor.

There IS a bias. The current photo serves to HIDE this most notable aspect of the 45th US president. Readers deserve neutrality, not a campaign photo. --Concord19 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: "unencyclopedic"

Compare our article here to...

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump

Pro-Trump bias needs to be held in check. Wikipedia is failing at the NPOV requirement. Britannica has a fully appropriate top photo. We DO NOT. --Concord19 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Best we stick with the current image. He's more notable for having been a US president, rather than being a convict. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Britannica link. No one is suggesting an orange jumpsuit photo. What's been stressed here is that the current photo of him with a huge, staged smile is not appropriate. --Concord19 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I did. Britannica has a low-quality photo far too closely cropped and certainly not a mug shot. For all politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official photo, regardless of reckless NPOV claims. See current consensus item 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see the specific recommendation I just posted below. Trump in August 2015. --Concord19 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a NEUTRAL example:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015_(cropped)_3.jpg

August 2015. Him campaigning for Potus, in which he succeeded. Yet also HISTORIC because this is the month he entered into the secret David Pecker Catch & Kill conspiracy. --Concord19 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat: For all politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official photo - God forbid we should allow him to look like a nice guy in his infobox photo. That is not what NPOV was ever intended to mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Convicted felon

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

---

The summary should be changed from "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, rapist and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/briefing/the-conviction-of-donald-j-trump.html or about a million others 176.94.78.33 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

"Trump won the 2016 presidential election" << change to: "Trump was declared winner"

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

The point stands:

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

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

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

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

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

Was 2016 a free and fair election?

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

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

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

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

Strong Oppose to edit - This is kind of a ridiculous point on it. His victory in 2016 is unchanged by his recent court cases. Even if he committed electoral fraud (which he has not been convicted of), it would not change the fact that he won it. To quote the same source as @Concord19: used later,

Donald Trump became the first former American president to be convicted of felony crimes Thursday as a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

— Michael R. Sisak, Jennifer Peltz, Eric Tucker, Michelle L. Price and Jill Colvin, Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crime

Overall I think any note on his victory is unneeded and should not be added, as he was not found guilty of electoral fraud in any way, and as cited by the court, he was only found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. While these records may have changed public views in 2016 if released, they are not electoral fraud. No note is needed in this. Donald Trump won the 2016 United States Presidential election, that is a fact and thus Wikipedia should state such.

As well as noted by @Cecropia:, any note in that regard that would be of that nature should go in a political op-ed, it is not meant for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia for knowledge and learning. Furthermore the inclusion of that specific opinion that it would falsify his victory (which is unsubstantiated by the courts) would violate WP:NPOV, and thus would not be beneficial to the goal of knowledge being properly shared with a prospective reader. CIN I&II (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested introducing opinion. But the gaping hole in your rebuttal is that your facts are incorrect.

"...he was only found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records."

No. He was not. If your words were accurate, then Trump would have been found guilty of 34 misdemeanors. The reason he was convicted of 34 felonies is because OTHER CRIMES were committed. You again:

"as he was not found guilty of electoral fraud in any way"

Actually, these other crimes WERE election crimes. Specifically:

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

So your assessment is DEAD WRONG. Trump entered a conspiracy to commit election fraud with David Pecker and others in Aug 2015. This is why the jury asked to have a review of Pecker's testimony. Because Donald Trump was being CONVICTED OF ELECTION FRAUD.

Pecker had absolutely nothing to do with records falsification. And that is the only aspect of these crimes you've recognized. This went far deeper than mere records. --Concord19 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is an excellent source which makes it absolutely clear that what Trump got convicted of was Election Interference:

Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial, by Norm Eisen

https://www.amazon.com/Trying-Trump-Election-Interference-Criminal/dp/B0D1BR9333

Our article will remain DEFICIENT until it is plainly communicated that the 2016 Election was corrupted by these criminal acts done by Donald Trump. Actions which he has now been convicted of. --Concord19 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Nowhere have I suggested that anyone edit to indicate what the impact might have been. No one has suggested venturing into OR. What you've been presented with is a reliable source which clearly states that these crimes were done with the intent to influence the election.

This is established FACT. Not established by you nor me. It was determined by the jury.

This article saying that "Trump won" is an incomplete statement. He won after CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. By him. Among others. --Concord19 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless a court says that he was not the rightful winner, he is still the winner. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read the main point that has been repeated here. No one is suggesting to remove the statement "Trump won". The point is that as of yesterday, it has become improper to say that without including sufficient qualifiers. That Trump was declared winner after Election Law was violated. --Concord19 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We could mention the conviction in a subsequent sentence, but I think it is fine as-is. We already mention the Russia stuff in the same paragraph, so nobody is going to think it was a clean election from reading the sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just edited the section header to now be the specific recommended change:

"Trump won" < change to: "Trump was declared winner"

And no, I myself do not see it sufficient to only mention Russia. If only one thing is mentioned in this paragraph, I would say it should be this new, far more historic felony conviction that happened as a result of Trump's election fraud conspiracy. --Concord19 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Here on Earth 1, Trump was elected president in 2016, based on The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons ... The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President. He had the greatest number of electoral votes and became president, i.e., something generally referred to as winning the election. (And, yeah, I insist that we keep mentioning that he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million.) Even if we found out now that he not only colluded with the National Enquirer and others to keep unsavory facts from reaching the voting public but also had a bunch of dead people vote for him in select swing states, it still wouldn't change the past. We'd definitely mention the zombies, 'though, just as we mention that he was convicted of felonies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"...it still wouldn't change the past."

Au contraire.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article on, say, Lance Armstrong. Look at how many Tour de France bicycle races he won.

This happens quite regularly. If you are CAUGHT CHEATING, no one says "well then, now let's quantify how the finish would have happened if you had not cheated." What happens is that an ASTERISK (*) is noted by your "victory", and a proper comment is presented. Or you are DISQUALIFIED outright, and cleanup efforts are made to make amends for the 'robbery' you committed.

Our job at this stage is to include that proper note. As of right now, no such explanation is presented to accompany this assertion that "Trump won". --Concord19 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Like others here. I'm not convinced by your arguments & so I oppose the changes you wish to make. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? At least three editors have engaged the OP, when they could have simply ignored. That indicates they thought this was discussion-worthy, and it's not for us to say otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Revert of official nomination

See edit

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

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

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

• Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio Republican legislature's attempt to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after Ohio's certification deadline for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline they gladly amended to 60 days the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
• Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." CNN: "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the [Republican] establishment". FT editorial: "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Amusement / trivial

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

---

Just noted that the in the cited reference "Haberman, Maggie (October 31, 2019). "Trump, Lifelong New Yorker, Declares Himself a Resident of Florida". The New York Times. Retrieved January 24, 2020.", the word "lifelong" also includes as a substring, the word "felon". Weird, huh? Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

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

---

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

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

It is not.

It says:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

It SHOULD say:

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

There is an active discussion as to whether to include "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is not circumventable. Until that discussion ends the sentence must remain as it is, as the community workshopped that sentence in 2021 and wishes for it to remain unaltered until a discussion concludes otherwise. —Sirdog (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Convicted felon ~ arbitration committee

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

---

Why dosent anyone bring this to the committee clearly we have been disagreeing on this for a long long time it’s time to ask the committee John Bois (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, ArbCom is most definitely aware, and I don't think they can do much. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

They make the final choice in edits John Bois (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't. ArbCom is mostly about stuff like user conduct, they don't decide on content. Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board, consensus between editors is what matters for content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom does not make any decisions about content in articles, I’m not sure where you got that idea. Their job is to remedy conflicts between users, not make final decisions for pages. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you imagine if ArbCom had the ability to override a community consensus about content in articles? The community would lose their shit, to say the least. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What "long long time"? The verdict came down less than a week ago. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This page changes every time I look at it and not just minor changes for the sake of integrity of the website this needs to be referred to ArbCom John Bois (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the nature of a wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Let the RFC run its course before deciding there is an issue we need Arbcom to resolve. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Each day this page changes, Wikipedia is supposed to remain unbiased everyone is pushing a political agenda ArbCom is the best way to do this instead of wasting time John Bois (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:agf, and then wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Or you could give me a summery John Bois (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A summery of what? Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's summery where I live. 81F today. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't make content decisions. ~Awilley (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:ARBINFO. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

About the Jan 6 commission

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

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

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

Wealth

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

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

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

Charges in the Miami case

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

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

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

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

Inline tag in the lead after being reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Home at birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your original edit, addition in bold:

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

Current edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politicians:

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

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

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

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

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

Other famous people (not politicians):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters - Trump is a convicted felon. Now what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  — Sentence 2 of Franklin D. Roosevelt

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

  — Sentence 4 of Richard Nixon

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

  — sentence 2 of Barack Obama

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

  — 4th sentence of Andrew Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose, but I would be in support of something more nuanced & detailed in a new second sentence within the lede. For example, I propose that the full lede should look something like this:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal)."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

Mr Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  But the conviction remains, from a legal perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The info box at the top of this section says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lean Oppose / Wait per Chaotic Enby and WP:BLP reasoning, at least for now. WP:TOOSOON for WP:FUTURE reasons to add it in the first-line introduction (though still should be mentioned in lede for its historical significance), but add if a time comes in the future where Trump's conviction does become an event in which he is significantly known for. B3251 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial.[14] As someone said above, it is "one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life". Far more notable than his past career as a media personality, for example. His life has been defined by these criminal investigations for years (which is even more remarkable due to him having been president), the first felon president, etc. etc.--Tataral (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Chaotic Enby and others. Of course we should mention that he was convicted of these crimes, and I don't think anybody disputes this; of course it should be in the lead. But ultimately, we are thinking about this backwards -- we, as Wikipedians, do not really have the ability to seriously help or hurt a presidential candidate with what we write. Maybe this is true for some ancillary peripheral issues, but for something as significant and universally paid attention to as the actual candidates in the United States presidential election during the few months before the election, no. It is completely the other way around: we are the main people whose reputation is affected by what we write. Bickering over whether it's in the first sentence, specifically, feels like it has little to do with the article, and everything to do with the search engine preview/personal assistant snippet/et cetera, and using it for an epic dunk on le cheeto accomplishes little to nothing in terms of improving the actual experience for readers. jp×g🗯️ 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Donald Trump is notable for successfully becoming the 45th President of the United States. He committed the 34 felony crimes in order to secure the Presidency. Therefore, causally, it is appropriate to mentioning his “convicted felon” label since the felony crimes he committed facilitated his achieving notability as President. Baltakatei 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Mild support per general practice in similar articles. (Strongly support retaining it somewhere in the lead.) I would favor a more general RfC on whether biographical articles should ever mention convictions in the first sentence that are not integral to the subject's notability. I note that the Blagojevich article has been edited just now to remove "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but this remains a very widespread practice even with politicians with much more substantial political careers than Trump's, see e.g. Edward M. Burke. If it's ever permissible to do this for an article on someone who is not primarily known for criming, then it should certainly be done for such a historically significant conviction as these 34 -- but I'm not sure it's ever a great idea from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- Visviva (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Criminal convictions do not become final until appeals have run out and are vacated if the person dies before then: "the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal." Also, calling people convicted felons is a violation of neutral tone and places undue weight on an aspect of Trump's life whose signficance has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the obvious bias in the suggested text would make readers question the accuracy and objectivity of the article. TFD (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Wait — I think that making such a decision during breaking news is a bad idea. This is a large RfC, which may thus carry a lot of weight, so I'm concerned that making such a decision in the heat of the moment will be here for a long time, even though the significance of the event may fade or gain. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

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

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

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

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  He was not convicted for election interference or trying to rig the election. He was convicted of "falsification of business records in the first degree". It is notable that he is a convicted felon, but it is not what he is known for and that is what needs to go in the first sentence. Boers1 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support the inclusion in the first sentence that Trump is both "a convicted felon" and "the first President to be convicted of multiple felony counts" (30+ to be exact).

Just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.

This should be included in the paragraph IMMEDIATELY. And if the RFC finds otherwise, then be moved. It should not be the other way around as Trump no longer enjoys his presumption of innocence, and any harm to his reputation by the facts presented are his fault and not our's for simply reporting it.

(FACT) Trump is a convicted felon.

(FACT) Trump is the first President to be convicted of crimes.

(FACT) Given the felony status of Trump's conviction, and he was unananimously convicted by a jury of his peers for trying to use a falsification-documents & campaign finance 'criminal' scheme to conceal hushmoney payments to a 'porn-star' to withhold vital information to the American public with the intent to interfere (and basically rig) an President election as it was Trump's fear that his affair with a 'porn-star' would ruin his reputuation to the degree that he would lose his election. To be clear, that is what he was accused of. And the jury made it clear on ALL COUNTS that they bought into this allegtion and convicted him quickly on this serious crime alleged.

Let's do our job people, and not withhold information from readers (especially the low-information ones) that may infer that our timidness here reflects that there is somehow something wrong about Trump's very fair verdict.

This should be a no-braining and facts are facts. The RFC here is being weaponized simply to WP:CENSOR this factual information to protect a convicted felon. If this information is embarassing and hurtful to the subject, then that's on him. We are simply reporting on it. We are not editorializing, nor are we saying "he is corrupt" or "a bad person". There are actually many famous convicted felons who have grown from their experience, and are highly respected. So it not our job to play the PR for Trump and his campaign.

Ironically Trump was convicted on ALL COUNTS for using dishonest criminal schemes to withhold vital information from the public because it might hurt his election chances. He was convicted for felony election interference, which was the central accusation here by a unanimous decision by a jury of his peers.

In America, trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of democracy, which must be respected. More importantly, Trump no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence following his verdict.

It is embarassing and appaling that wikipedia is finding itself basically enabling a convicted felon into gaslighting the public by WP:CENSORing this page.

Here's the thing: compared to other pages involving powerful men like Harvey Weinstein we have no problem including in the first paragraph that they are convicted felon if that is the facts here.

Again, it is WP:NOTABLE enough that Obama was the first black president that we report it front and center.

That Trump "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" could, to play devil's advocate, be argued (on some of similar logic here offered by naysayers here), that we NOT include any of those labels in the first sentence given he was unexceptional in any of those fields, and basically a failure on all fronts given his many bankrupcies, the loss of the President election in 2020 (which was fair and square) and his cancellation of his show. Yet, it would be absurd NOT to mention this.

Again, just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.

EmmaRoydes (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

But Obama's article doesn't mention in the first sentence that he was the first black President. --Minilammas (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Donald Guy, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fiendpie, et al. I agree that if it's worth mentioning, it's worth specifying, so if we're going to include something in the first sentence, "convicted fraudster" is better than "convicted felon." I'm not sure whether it belongs in the first sentence as of now, but I think it's probably worth mentioning in the second sentence. It shouldn't stand alone in the same way as Donald Guy's examples, at least not yet. So the first paragraph might look something like:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, as well as being the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

And perhaps later, it would be more justified to place "convicted fraudster" after "businessman." But I'm not sure that's warranted yet. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I like this, and it could be a viable starting point for a first paragraph. I'd also suggest a few other distinctions, such as first to be impeached twice, first to be elected without any prior political or military position, or the oldest president before the record was broken by his immediate successor. The details would need to be worked out later, presumably after several exhausting debates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this is the best possible starting point for a revised article, covering the significant points while in keeping with Wikipedia policy. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the one. When this RfC inevitably ends in "no consensus", start a new one with this as the specific proposal. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "convicted felon" in opening sentence. This isn't even arguable. Please provide one article where we say convicted felon in the opening sentence. Neither Elizabeth Holmes, Jordan Belfort, nor Sam Bankman-Fried say convicted felon in the opening sentence or even in the lead. This discussion should be closed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidLark1n (talk • contribs)

• That's easy. Dennis Hastert. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per IP, Di, Trovatore, Meters, and others. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose It's clear that this is something that is somewhat inconsistent in its applications, but as many other users here have mentioned, generally it is included in the first sentence if the fact that the person is a convict is one of the most notable reasons they are famous. I am sure in 20-30 years the fact Trump was the first US president ever convicted of a felony, but just a day after it happened seems very rushed. It should absolutely be included in the lede, maybe even a 2nd sentence, but right now is just rushing to be able to say it for the sake of being able to say it. Jelephant (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Even besides all the points already mentioned, 34 is uhh... quite a few. IdfbAn (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose it's just not what he's notable for to the point that it should be in the opening sentence. Zanahary (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support _pbp 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support I've read through the oppose side and it seems to be mostly based on Precedent, Crystal Ball, and Notoriety. I think all three are actually satisfied though. The precedent we do have for leaders, especially American ones supports putting it in the first sentence. It exists for example in Dennis Hastert's page. I think Crystal Ball is satisfied for the same reason Notoriety is satisfied. It is already international news. Donald Trump is the first American President to be convicted of a felony. I can support different wording, but this is definitely something we should be mentioning. As to whether it is something he is notorious for, we have had years of investigations and there are multiple court trials going on right now. All of this is also international news. And this trial specifically looked at charges of fraud in relation to his election campaign in 2020. Not mentioning this would be like calling any convicted white collar criminal a businessman without further clarification.Outcast95 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree the middle ground to this is an expanded first paragraph, but this would require some working out. It would need to be at least 4-5 comprehensive sentences about Trump, not just the existing sentence plus "In May 2024, he was convicted of a crime" as has been suggested by some. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. Failing to report that he is the first and only US president convicted of a felony in the lede lede sentence is like failing to report that John F. Kennedy was assassinated in the lede lede aentence to that article. It a fact so remarkable, important, and basic as to defy any possible explanation for omission short of a desire to deny reality. Msnicki (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Msnicki: I don't see anybody saying we shouldn't report this in the lead. Please read the section heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: At the moment, it's not anywhere in the lede paragraph, never mind the first sentence. But to your point, I've clarified my comment to say the mention should go in the first sentence. It's that important. Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Msnicki: The lead section isn't just the first sentence or paragraph. It's everything above the table of contents, or, if you're using the Vector 22 layout, above "Personal life". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose It should obviously be mentioned in the lead, but putting it in the first sentence is UNDUE. We need to give it more time and see if it becomes one of the defining aspects of Trump's life. The push to immediately give it this much prominence is clear recentism. I could potentially support including it in the second or third sentence instead. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you want it in the first paragraph it would logically go at the end. Right now that paragraph is chronologically sorted. We also do not have to add the exact proposed words to the first sentence. I can read something like, "... And is the first US president to be convicted of a felony." To say this is just Recentism is unwarranted in my opinion though. If nothing else this will be studied as part of a sea change in American Politics, just like Richard Nixon's resignation. Outcast95 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support It's a fact (Wikipedia is not censored, so we should include facts regardless of how they may offend certain political factions), and as mentioned numerous times above, it's noteworthy as he is the only president to be convicted of a felony. I also think this discussion needs to be organized a bit, it has become hard to follow. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: Then a lot of people are going to learn what the inside of a WP:AE complaint looks like. We have a low tolerance for edit warring here—particularly edit warring against a documented consensus. I honestly doubt there will be a significant amount of that after editors see other editors receiving sanctions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support using "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. Since no other president, former or otherwise, has been charged with, let alone convicted of felonies, this is an extremely distinguishing fact about his legacy. Not including it would be like mentioning that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, but leaving out that he was the first person to walk on the moon. ShadowAZNman (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support - Because the convictions are an extraoridnarily unique characteristic of this former president. The convictions are very unusual for any leader of any country, and common sense suggests that the convictions should be prominently mentioned in the lede. Noleander (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment If I counted correctly, we're at 111 "support" and 70 "oppose" !votes right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The closer may judge that the minority has stronger arguments, making such tallies a bit pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Especially given that the oppose arguments have generally been based on policy and precedent, while the support !votes have, at least 50%, been based on nothing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I can only assume that arguments based on what unrelated articles do and arguments about "censorship" are going to be thrown out entirely, as these are not factors considered in Wikipedia's decision-making process. Same with any argument based on the argument that "it's important", since that's not the criteria for the terms used in the first sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely, and I myself voted "Oppose", it's mostly just to have a rough idea of how the numbers are going. I'm preemptively sorry for whoever will have to close this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, after quickly skimming the discussion thus far, it seems a decent chunk of that 111 are IPs and single-purpose or brand-new accounts. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Expand the the first paragraph/Weak oppose Most other convicted politicans don’t have it in the first sentence, however it’s notable enough to add a second sentence to the first paragraph. Cepeli (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - Obviously there's enough reporting on this. Precedent: lots of Wikipedia Bios have this in the first sentence. This one should be no different. It's a historic status too - no president has ever been convicted of a felony before. Easily worth mentioning for that fact alone. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Any precedent arguments work equally well both ways. Lots have similar things in the first sentence, lots of others don't. Don't cherry-pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  They do not work the same both ways, as several examples from similar cases of American politicians being charged and convicted with felonies show it in the first sentence, for example John Dean, Darleen Druyun, Michael Grimm, James Traficant, and Corrine Brown. As well it is not an inaccurate description of him. Also I agree with @Cepeili: in their comment that the first paragraph should be expanded as well, since currently it is extremely brief and does not explain much concerning him, which is unlike several other former presidents (See Franklin D. Roosevelt) CIN I&II (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Matthew Lyon, Charles F. Mitchell, Robert Smalls, Joseph R. Burton, Henry B. Cassel, William Lorimer, Robert W. Archbald, William P. MacCracken Jr., John W. Langley, Harry E. Rowbottom, Michael J. Hogan, George Ernest Foulkes, Donald F. Snow, John H. Hoeppel, James Michael Curley, Andrew J. May, J. Parnell Thomas, Walter E. Brehm, Orland K. Armstrong, Thomas Francis Johnson, Frank W. Boykin, Daniel Brewster, John N. Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, Dwight Chapin, Herbert W. Kalmbach, Charles Colson, Spiro Agnew, Maurice Stans, Ted Kennedy, Martin B. McKneally, Neil Gallagher, J. Irving Whalley, Edwin Reinecke, Earl Butz, John Dowdy, Richard T. Hanna, Frank J. Brasco, Bertram L. Podell, James F. Hastings, Andrew J. Hinshaw, Richard A. Tonry, Charles Diggs, J. Herbert Burke, Frank M. Clark, Elliott Abrams, Michael Deaver, Melvyn R. Paisley, James G. Watt, Harrison A. Williams, Richard Kelly, Raymond Lederer, Frank Thompson, John M. Murphy, Jon Hinson, Joshua Eilberg, Daniel Flood, Fred Richmond, George V. Hansen, Mario Biaggi, Robert Garcia, Pat Swindall. That stops short of the Bush41 presidency, and I could go on. Did I not just ask you NOT to cherry-pick? (Best look again at Dean and Brown; beyond being seriously flawed, your argument is only 60% correct. Brown had it for eight minutes the other day, before it was reverted.) Sure, if you want to stretch my AGF, you could tailor the parameters so as to disqualify many of the above examples, claiming irrelevant distinctions. I've seen it before. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is tangential, but how do you know so much? Is there a filter function or do you just have a really good memory? Bremps... 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Bremps: I Googled "politicians convicted of felonies", which took me to List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Then I just went through the list, collapsing from exhaustion before Bush41. There may be a few cases of mere misdemeanor convictions—I generally didn't read any farther than the first sentences—but not enough to significantly alter the argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I wish I had taken the time to note the cases that did have a mention in the first sentence, and I'm not going through the list again (still exhausted). My fuzzy memory is that it was about five, which would be ~7.1% in that sample. If there is any precedent argument to be made, it's a clear precedent to omit this in the first sentence. But I'd settle for editors ceasing to claim the opposite and adjusting any !votes to date—or for the closer to ignore them. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming that I read correctly, in the list of names you provided, not a single one mentioned anything about crimes in the first sentence. A few referred to Watergate in passing, but nothing as obvious as "convicted felon". Cessaune [talk] 10:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  You read correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Going by precedence is valid here b/c the only comparible person is Richard Nixon, a former US president who was pardoned for felony crimes. Those crimes are mentioned prominently in the first paragraph before the infobox. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I predicted, tailoring of the parameters to suit one's goal. I'm actually surprised it took so long. You might take note that my evidence has been accepted by more than a few editors with far more experience, and countered by none. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ad populem aside, You posted a list of low level felons and ted kennedy?

  Senators breaking laws is nothing new. A president breaking the law lead to the success of the washington post. It triggered nation wide protests and election reform. It dominated the global news cycle for the entire trial

  Suggesting we treat Trump like Matthew Lyon is laughable. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Glad we could make you laugh. Your argument will no doubt be noted. BTW, ad populum (not "populem") is what Wikipedia calls "consensus". Far from being something to criticize, it's policy. a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so. At Wikipedia, it's good precisely because many (most) people think so, provided it's not a democratic vote. Hardly fallacious. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, it doesnt negate the fact that youre not engaging with my argument by using a fallacy. I thought you said "this isn't a vote" earlier? Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  youre not engaging with my argument I think you're making another newbie mistake. Discussions like these are not debates that can be "won" in the moment. Rather, you make your argument, I make mine, other editors support either yours or mine, and (unless policy clearly supports one side over the other) the closer counts !votes. So experienced editors articulate their arguments as best they can, and then they shut up for the sake of everyone. I think you've articulated your argument well enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then why dont you take your own advice? 109 talk contribs on this page alone. I have said my piece, have you finished saying yours yet? Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you pledge not to make another comment in this RfC, I will match your pledge. The net effect would be positive. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Eh, no per the "we can't even call Osama a terrorist in his first sentence argument. Being convicted of a crime makes him a felon, but it doesn't automatically make it life-defining. Mention it somewhere in the lede is fine. Zaathras (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well that's not quite true is it? His article's lede identifies him as the founder of Al Qaeda, and the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack. They didn't use the specific word, "terrorist" but they definitely identified him as one. Outcast95 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Re-read my comment and actually pay attention, please. My point is that the bin Laden article does not lead with "Osama bin laden is a terrorist." Zaathras (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support (with a slight change) - it's self-evidently extremely important information about the man, and to omit it would be blatantly contrary to WP:NPOV. But it should be "convicted fraudster" rather than "convicted felon", so that it's more informative as to the specific crimes he's been convicted of (to date). Ou tis (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support, largely because it appears to be fairly normal on other politicians’ pages, and it truly probably is one of the most noteworthy things about him. Adamsmo (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly include it on the page, but perhaps not in the first sentence until a bit of time has passed so we're sure it sticks. I would suggest waiting until after the election dust has settled so tensions aren't quite as high, and this might be less viral. I don't feel strongly on this either way, and don't envy the position of whoever has to make the call. They deserves a barnstar, maybe we can have one made for the occasion.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Donald Trump Closer's Barnstar, decorated with colorful shields and spears. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment —

  American politician, 2 decades

  media personality, 5 decades

  businessman, 5 decades

  convicted felon, 0.0003 decades

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

How many presidents have been convicted on felony charge? 1/46. It’s notable. It needs inclusion. 9t5 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As a thought experiment: imagine instead we were discussing a famous personality who then went on a shooting spree and killed many people. The time spent being famous remains far greater, but the fact would be that a significant event altered their status in the public eye overnight (even if it doesn't affect public opinion, or why they were famous originally).

Obviously this example is a more extreme case than what Trump has here. But when Trump became president, this was added to his article's 1st sentence regardless of how long he'd been president. This is the same office, and the debate could be summed up with: "is this event as significant as his becoming a president in the first place." Crawdaunt (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support for using “convicted felon” in the opening sentence. It’s unprecedented for a former President and major political party nominee, which makes it sufficiently relevant. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines and precedent make it clear that it would be included in the page of anyone else. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@PencilSticks0823: Anyone else except these and many more. I fail to understand how people can be so reckless with precedent claims, and I would expect a competent closer to discount any such claims lacking actual evidence (which doesn't mean a handful of cherry-picked examples). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As per WP:PRECEDENT and possibly touching-on WP:NPOV. As to the first point, other Wikipedians have pointed-out that when one’s notability is derived from other sources prior to the conviction, it is rarely — if ever - used in the first sentence. As to WP:NPOV it’s kind of obvious, no? I saw someone suggest that since other famous individuals whom have been convicted after achieving notability do NOT have their convictions in the first sentence, we should go and review ALL of those articles. This flies in the face of the entire purpose of WP:PRECEDENT, in my opinion, and I’m sure WP:NPOV would have something to say about it. Interesting to note that the Jussie Smollett article had this discussion and, despite the majority of his notability for most of the world stemming from his conviction, it was decided that his notability prior to his conviction was enough to not warrant the inclusion of his criminal conviction in the first sentence/article short description. MWFwiki (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support: He is a convicted felon. The removal of a statement stating such in the first sentence would be an act in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. We are not the former-President’s PR team. The fact this is even in need of a discussion is sad and questionable. Might as well ask “should we bar the inclusion of facts for this man just because he was the President?” The answer to which is NO. 9t5 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support: His conviction is historically significant, being the first US president convicted of a felony. As a non-American, Donald Trump's illegal activity during the 2016 election is, indeed, one of the main things he's known for where I live(on the west coast of Canada). Maybe in much of the States he's known for other things, but, as far as I'm concerned, his criminal activity is a defining trait. I know the conviction is very recent, but the controversy surrounding it has been ongoing for a long time. It is clearly distinct from other political controversies in that he has *actually been convicted*. It seems notable enough for first-sentence inclusion to me. Anyway, it's only a weak support because others have pointed out that this may be WP:Recentism, and because I worry (perhaps excessively) about my own biases. If it's not to be included in the first sentence, then perhaps somewhere else in the first paragraph (which would need to be expanded to be multi-sentence)? HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone's wondering why there's a lot of IP users/new SPAs coming here to support this RfC, I think it might be because it was mentioned on CNN? CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page. Not exactly WP:CANVASS-ing, but something people should be aware of. Regards, Endwise (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also perhaps from this post from Occupy Democrats? Viewed by 1 million people, apparently: https://x.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1796303015990976969 Endwise (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support "convicted felon" in opening sentence. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for simple consistency with other Wikipedia articles. It's only fair. He's not special. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chaotic Enby's reasoning. Also, the far-right is already convinced Wikipedia has a liberal bias. We shouldn't give them more fuel for that argument without good reason. Gottagotospace (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  media organizations shouldn't pander to public opinion in the ways that you suggest. The far right does not control Wikipedia and their opinion of Wikipedia is not a factor in determining whether an article is biased Editing-dude144 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to imply that we should pander to public opinion. What I meant was that we should be careful and thoughtful in our editing, and not be reckless or impulsive. We should carefully think through the reasons for making edits. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment got in a Slate article by the way! [15] Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw! The author notified me on my Talk page. That's what prompted me to come back to this discussion, actually. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:FIRST and WP:FELON. Trump has been notable for many many years, for things other than being a criminal. His status as a convicted felon is notable and important, and should be mentioned prominently in the lede. But it isn't so intrinsically linked to his notability that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. As for Blagojevich and other such politicians who have it mentioned, they are KNOWN for their criminal status. That's the only reason they didn't fade into obscurity like other IL politicians. Trump would and will be famous for his other various attributes despite this conviction. Is it important to mention? Yes definitely. In the lede. I could support maybe even the first or second paragraph. But not the first sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose First sentences are reserved (primarily) for the person's name, nationality, defining occupation, and notable context if needed; essentially who they are and what they are most known for. Trump has been a felon for two days. While yes it is notable that no other president has been a felon before, please look at other President's articles: Nixon, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, the list goes on and on: none of their first sentences include what makes them "unique" presidents in history (resign, impeach, assassinated, etc.). Second, third, twentieth sentence, sure, but not the first. We should wait for when he is inevitably convicted of more crimes and how much of his life/perception /commentary is based on his status as a felon and then revisit this conversation. I would also note that I find above arguments that including his felony somehow would show bias and/or damage wikipedia's credibility as ridiculous. Yeoutie (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly support, as it is a verifiable fact and supremely notable that Trump is the only former U.S. President convicted of a felony. If not in the first sentence's list of accomplishments, it should be in the opening paragraph, not six paragraphs down the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "convicted felon" is almost never appropriate in the first sentence of a BLP. I've been saying this, and helping to remove this from BLPs, for years. Obviously it should be covered in the lead, but somewhere after the first sentence and by describing the felonies, not with the scarlet letter phrase of "convicted felon", a negative mark we only put in the leads of convicted criminal BLPs that WP editors dislike. Vadder (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, he is not notable (in the WP:N sense) for being a felon in and of itself; he is primarily known as a "politician, media personality, and businessman" who was the 45th president, as the current lead sentence states, with coverage of his felonies being contingent on those previous facts. This isn't "RationalWiki" with sassy dunks in the first sentence. Of course, it should be mentioned later in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His conviction should be covered in the article (and it is), it should be mentioned in the lead (and it is), but it is not a defining characteristic that should be mentioned in the first sentence. That's something that is done for people who are notable primarily because of their crime and conviction. Meters (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Question Is there such a thing as a snowball no consensus? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but arguably this is not one, there are too many yes comments to snow close it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean "snowball no" consensus, meant snowball "no consensus". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Even that would require some assessment of relative strength of arguments. What if one side has significantly stronger arguments? Then it's NOT "no consensus". Something this controversial needs an outside closer regardless. Even better, a panel of two or more, although that's less crucial. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend a panel of closers for this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I was surprised to find that felony details was not mentioned until the 6th paragraph. This type of information is usually mentioned in the opening paragraph for other criminals. Regardless of the individual, this is basic and defining information that should not be hidden. Bendono (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As many others have convincingly argued, it is and should be very unusual to use "convicted felon" in the first sentence of a bio (I'm not actually sure there's any case where I would support it, but that's a question for another day). There is no way for it not to look politically motivated, if we do it for Trump specifically.
  To be clear, the conviction absolutely should be mentioned in the lead section and probably in the lead paragraph, but even there a formulation like "convicted of a felony" should be used rather than "convicted felon". --Trovatore (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why should we use "convicted of a felony" rather than "convicted felon"? Both are accurate, both are in wide usage in reliable sources, and there are plenty of articles using "convicted felon." SS451 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  See the WP:FELON essay, particularly the section Suggested alternate construction to avoid labeling. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose putting in first sentence per User:Brightgalrs and User:KlayCax. No objection to adding it in the second sentence, however, or elsewhere in the first paragraph. The best analogue is Richard Nixon, though a criminal conviction is arguably more historic than the resignation, so it would warrant an earlier mention than at the end of the paragraph (as with Nixon's page). User:Donald Guy's table is pretty useful for seeing how we treat other presidential firsts. Bremps... 03:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot to mention that I support expanding the first paragraph a la Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton or Al Gore Bremps... 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that these comments made by a CNN guest may result in a flood of outraged watchers coming here to cast their vote. Not sure what the impact of this actually is, but it's good to be aware of any external influences on the consensus-building process. Bremps... 04:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The talk page was protected a few days ago now. I'm pretty sure IP editors can't comment anymore. Outcast95 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Oppose. Not in the first sentence, his primary notablility is not with the conviction. Cossde (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — The conviction might be overturned in the appeals process, which could include the U. S. Supreme Court. If that happens, it seems like it probably won't happen before the 2024 presidential election. From the Wikipedia policy Neutral Point of View, in the section Explanation, "The aim is to inform, not influence." The item is already in the lead and body of the article, so the reader is informed. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. His recent conviction is not what he is mainly known for, and the first sentences should be reserved for that information. JoseJan89 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support He is a convicted felon. That is an undisputed fact that cannot be emphasized enough. And I agree with those that said history will remember him as a felon. He is the first president to ever wear the label, which is of huge historical significance. In a Wikipedia context, the statement is factual, accurate, verifiable from many sources, and highly relevant. Since that is the case, yes, keep it in the first sentence.Coalcity58 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: As others have said, definitely not in the first sentence, though it should be mentioned later in the lede. As Vadder, Crossroads, and Trovatore put it, it generally feels like undue weight to have such a strong descriptor used in the first sentence unless it was the only thing he was notable for (which clearly is not the case here). It's certainly notable and historically significant enough to be mentioned in the lede, perhaps at the end of an early paragraph, but a strong descriptor in the first sentence is RECENTISM. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight, this feels like a polital attack. This is not what he is most known for. Dream Focus 23:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Meh. On one hand, yes, he is a convicted felon and this could go in the lead sentence similarly to other BLPs. On the other hand, he's not mainly known for being a convicted felon. He's mainly known for his business ventures and for his mediocre presidency. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment "Biden campaign plans to get more aggressive once Trump trial ends — The Biden campaign is considering whether to lean into branding Trump a "convicted felon" if he's convicted in New York.", NBC News Bob K31416 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wait: It's not even been a week since the conviction. We need to wait to see if reliable sources consistently refer to him as a felon. In addition, too much media and internet attention is currently focused on this very discussion to produce a reasonable result. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is notable enough to fit into his lead, but Donald Trump is not notable for his crime and later conviction. If this is historically impactful enough to define him in the future, they can put it in the lead then, or start another discussion. BurgeoningContracting 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (e/c) (disclosure: experienced editor but came here from Slate) (1) "Convicted felon" is too vague – there are lots of felony offences. (2) MOS:FIRSTBIO specifies the first sentence should state what the subject is mainly known for and should avoid overloading the sentence with everything notable. In Trump's case, this is his presidency, not his felony conviction. (3) Mandruss has exhaustively demonstrated there's no automatic precedent for American politicians with felony convictions to be described as "convicted felons" in the first sentence – I agree any comments claiming such a precedent should be discarded as based on a false premise. – Teratix ₵ 17:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes!! I agree with all of your points!! You made some excellent arguments. Like, is he a felon because he murdered a bunch of people? Is he a felon because of falsifying business records? Is he a felon because he got a fake ID to buy alcohol before the legal drinking age? All of those crimes could count as "felonies" in some jurisdictions. "Felon" isn't specific enough.

  And to reiterate, I agree with all the other stuff you said too :) Gottagotospace (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Mandruss explicitly proved the first sentence while neglecting to mention the lede in this article is exactly one sentence long. It is mentioned in the lede of American Politicians. If you want to expand the lede beyond one sentence then I could support not having it in "the first sentence." But as it stands the first sentence and lede is simply a list of things he is notable for, including being the first American President to be convicted of something. Outcast95 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do realize that the next 5 paragraphs after that sentence are considered part of the lead of this article, right? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Lede" means first paragraph, "lead" means the whole section. SS451 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Really? I thought it was just a difference between British and American English. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is way off topic, but "lede" is journalism jargon, which many Wikipedia editors feel should be avoided in reference to Wikipedia. See WP:NOTALEDE, which is not a policy, guideline, or even essay, just a summary of discussions related to the term. In any case people are certainly free to use the term if they want to, but I would not count on it being understood as specifically the first paragraph. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  See beginning of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for meanings in Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:LEAD: Newspapers have "lede" or "lead" paragraphs. WP isn't a newspaper, it has a lead section before the table of contents and the first heading, or, if you have to or actually want to use Vector 22 (why?), before the first heading. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Lead/lede debate/debacle aside, the RfC question before us is whether to use the exact phrase "convicted felon" in the first sentence specifically. I am not necessarily opposed to a first-paragraph mention a là Donald Guy's FDR, Nixon and Obama examples, but this is not the question at hand. – Teratix ₵ 02:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trump isn't notable because he's been convicted. He's notable because he was a former US president. He would remain notable if the jury had found him not guilty on all charges. And he, as a human being, isn't any more notable than he was prior to the conviction. The only thing that's notable about this conviction is the fact that no president, sitting or former, has been convicted of a felony. That has nothing to do with Trump's current notability and, as such, shouldn't be placed in the first sentence of the lead. Cessaune [talk] 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This person is unique in being both a felon and a former president. If a unique characteristic isn't notable and worth highlighting, then what is? Matt Gies (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support although not necessarily using the exact words "convicted felon", the 1st sentence should reflect the fact that he is the 1st former us president to be convicted on a felony in some way, as that is a huge portion of his notability now. Fieari (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in the first sentence on account of due weight and recentism. Trump has had a long and active life and career. Being convicted plays a relatively small part. Adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence as is would not be balanced. Senorangel (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – I feel like people are missing the point. The conviction itself being notable doesn't mean that Trump is notable due to the conviction. Simply speaking, Trump has been notable for a long time. He hit a plateau of notability the day he was elected. He's no more notable today than he was six days ago, or six weeks ago. Cessaune [talk] 09:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  The point isn’t the guy’s degree of notability. The point is that he's added another notable fact to his bio; the question is where among the other notable facts in the lead ut belongs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  My point was that Trump didn't suddenly become more notable after the conviction, which points to my belief that he isn't notable due to the conviction or, at the very least, more notable because of it. In most other articles, we say things like "convicted felon" in their first sentence when a major/the primary cause of their notability is the crime they were convicted for. That doesn't apply here. Cessaune [talk] 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seems too soon to even discuss this tbh. Wait a few months at least, maybe a year or two? See how it gets covered in RS and the rest of the article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly support was surprised not to see this already. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support — should have briefly (two words) ending the first sentence, and again with more detail as the last sentence of a multi-sentence first paragraph, and again as its own section. Having read most of these comments, it seems that confusion is arising from so many possibilities. Better as three parts. Experienced editor (since 2005), but came here from well-written Slate article.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support but only felon - we never call someone a felon unless they are convicted, so convicted is redundant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
  
• Support – this should not use the penultimate words "convicted felon" as if it's his identity, but the 1st sentence should reflect this significant event. Among his key accomplishments & defining features, he is the only U.S. president to ever be convicted of a felony. Ex: "... is a media personality and businessman, the 45th president ... , and the only U.S. president to ever be convicted of a felony crime." Crawdaunt (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another way to look at it is that this is the only period in history where a U.S. President has been convicted of a felony. I think you might want to wait to see whether the conviction will be overturned, possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That wording would imply that “the only…crime” is just as notable as the rest of his features. While I get that the liberal-leaning !voters here likely think it’s “zomg the most important thing about him”, ultimately it’s not. As an example, he could become the second ever President to serve split terms. His presidency has a lasting impact - his charges will not, and will fade into history when he dies (eventually). Likewise, his business empire will survive him, as will his TV personality time as the host of the Apprentice.

  So no, his crime is not as notable as the other things he’s done, nor is it more notable/“most notable” as some people have called it. That is a recentism-based view trying to use WP to “right the great wrong” of him having supporters, not actually trying to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: while yes, he is a convicted felon, I don't think this is relevant to the first sentence. Trump is mostly known to be the 45th president of the US, not mostly known for being a convicted felon. It should definetly be mentionned in the intro of the article (as it's a major factabout him), but NOT in the first sentence. The first sentence should focus on what he is the most known for. Cosmiaou (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - plenty of other celebrities have this listed in their first sentence. He deserves no special treatment. Bens dream (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, who? The type of people that have this title in their articles are career criminals, serial killers, serial rapists, large-scale fraudsters, etc. Read List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. Cessaune [talk] 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're aware that all such comments have been debunked here; you commented there. I trust that the closer will ignore them, so there's really no reason to respond to them when the editors have failed to read existing discussion. It just adds clutter and makes the closer's job that much harder. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Cessaune [talk] 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can anyone tell me why the below collapse section was determined to be long and repetitive? Can i just collapse any thread and throw a subjective reason on top? Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you can (please sign your {{cot}}). Whether it's accepted is a different question. Right or wrong, a user's editing history is a factor, and 51 edits don't lend a lot of credibility. I don't necessarily support this collapse, but I'll abstain for the time being—and it's certainly not censorship as you asserted in your edit summary. Outright removal would be censorship, and even that is sometimes justified. Collapse is merely a way of isolating less useful discussion for the benefit of new arrivals and the closer in particular. It doesn't prevent the content from being read by interested parties (and one could even argue that the Streisand effect is in play). At best, this collapsed content is a far too verbose wall of text. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments from editor who already voted and long discussion Nemov (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment and I reiterate my Strong Support for the mention of "convicted felon" in the first or second sentence. The WP:ONUS really is on the haters here. It is a simple and important statement of fact that Trump is a convicted felon now, especially given that the accountability is on the accused when convicted, not us for playing the PR firm for his candidacy. So this RFC is being completely abused as the WP:NOTABLE well-sourced information should be in the article UNTIL an RFC says otherwise as it is NOT WP:UNDUE to leave it out. If the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy also decided that a flat-Earth was somehow offensive and someone sought to run an RFC on the Earth wikipedia article or Flat-Earth article, forcing us to leave out or bury information about the world being round, would that make any sense just because a lot of editors felt strongly about it?! When it comes to statements of fact-- and for many, a flat-Earth or the existence of Jesus or the crimes of Donald Trump or the existence of the Holocaust are very heated and controversial for many zealous people and in much the same way-- "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. For example, the article on Earth does not mention the fringe flat Earth theory." And likewise we shouldn't water down this article simply because the very act of doing implies that a serious & matter-of-fact conviction of a criminal may in some way questionable, as the Trump cult is attempting in its gaslighting of the public. It is a fact that this is the definition of WP:NOTABLE when Trump is the first President in the history of America to be properly convicted by a jury of his peers-- a trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and which must be respected as far as long standing legal precedence goes regarding the American justice system and the American Constitution dictates for its citizens. So, given all that, this should NOT be WP:CENSORed in the way it presented and buried in the article when this is simply a statement of fact. If facts somehow are politically biased then that's on the the subject themselves, not us simply for reporting it. If Mr.Trump or Al Capone or Harvey Weinstein or Ted Bundy are made to look bad because of how the facts are presenting on their wikipedia articles, then that's on the (convicted) criminals, not on us for merely reporting it. To be clear, Trump was convicted 34 times for 34 felony crimes and has many more indictments he faces. That is a criminal, factually-speaking. Yet, using the diplomatic language "convicted language" for a serial criminal here as an American jury now has decided he is completely insync with other articles that mention such important information in the opening paragraph. That this is not included in ALL articles for serial-criminals like Mr.Trump is not a rule that should exclude said information from this page. If the haters here are upset about the fact that Mr.Trump is being referred to as a "convicted felon" because it is controversial to do so, then we should simply mention that as well since that is also part of the news for this. We could say: "Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, businessman and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States of America and was the first President to be tried and convicted of crimes in a controversial episode of American history." Or something along those lines. Seen another way... when looking at what IS allowed in the opening sentence: "Donald Trump is an American politician..." He is one of many, MANY American politicians. So that's not all that special. And that label too is controversial. Should that be left out given the similar insincere fallacious logic that I've seen employed here?! "...media personality...," Also not all that special given the countless celebrities in the world. And also surrounded by controversy given his well-documented inappropriate behavior toward women and African-Americans while he was celebrity. Should this be withheld too on similar silly grounds? "...businessman..." And also not all that special, and he's in fact a failed businessman and now adjudicated fraudster according to the courts. Can't get more controversial than that... so we should axe that too, right? At least according to some here. "...and the 45th President of the United States and the first President in American history to be convicted of multiple felony crimes." Guess what? There is no other President in the United States that can share that distinction. If that isn't important or WP:NOTABLE then nothing is. And yet so many here in an example of Wikipedia online-mob rule are saying that this isn't as important as the other more common and equally controversial labels also mentioned in the opening paragraph. This is an example of a WP:FRINGE violation in the sheep's clothing of an abused RFC. Again, the WP:DUE information should be restored immediately UNLESS a group of admins close this dispute with proper reasoning as to why is should be WP:CENSORed. Because the idea suggested by some that this should remain watered-down and buried "for weeks if not years" because this happens to be about a convicted criminal with incredible political power behind him is wikipedia failing at its most important duty, to inform the reader, not 'protect them' from the truth. EmmaRoydes (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) I've read through your entire statement here and 90% of it is your opinion, with zero sourcing to back it up, and the other 10% borders on personal attacks of those who are discussing this based on policies/guidelines. You're free to have your opinion that this is the most important thing about him and must be in the first sentence for that reason. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not operate on your opinion, nor based on "righting the great wrong" of him not being called a criminal early on or not. Nobody is saying this should be censored. People are discussing whether it is due weight for the first sentence or not. And you've provided very little actual argument for why it is something that outweighs his other lifelong achievements that he will be remembered for 20, 100, 200 years in the future for. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) I have not personally attacked anyone here. No sources? Really?? It is an uncontested fact that Donald Trump was convicted of multiple felony crimes. I don't need to source the importance of why it should be included in wikipedia. Absurd. And in fact I cited and quoted 'many times' the wikipedia policy about the importance of treating Mr.Trump as no difference from any other convicted criminal. Including WP:CENSOR,WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE among other policy here. It is not 'my opinion.' I am advocating on behalf of the WP:NOTABLE facts. The Harvey Weinstein page is quoted as saying in it's first paragraph,"Harvey Weinstein (/ˈwaɪnstiːn/; born March 19, 1952) is an American former film producer and convicted sex offender." And recently som of that has been thrown in limbo following some recent appeal reversals. So should that information ALSO be considered mere "opinion" simply because Mr.Weinstein holds many academy awards and is responsible for giving us classic films like "Shakespeare in Love" or "Pulp Fiction"?lolol. Of course not. Because a jury convicted him of serious crimes and in America the social contract and constitutional agreement among its citizens is that "a criminal trial of the accused by a jury of his peers is a fundamental principle of their democracy, which must be respected as a matter of law and historic precedence." Given the hundreds of years of US Presidents and the fact that THIS is the first one fairly convicted of multiple crimes, and given the likelihoo How about AGF? EmmaRoydes (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC) You made multiple accusations against AGF in your tirade. You also are providing an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for inclusion based on one (1) other page, neglecting to read User:Mandruss' clear argument above that even if we are going to take that argument, it actually supports not including it, because it shows that only about 5-10% of articles have it in their first sentence. I won't be responding further to you, but please take note of the contentious topics notice I'll be placing on your talkpage soon - while you're allowed to voice your opinion, making charged accusations against others is not appropriate for this discussion and does not lend to your comments being taken well by others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Aside from your essay failing to show how something should be added to the first sentence, I am now accused of being a member of the MAGA cult (speaking of AGF). You've made my day with a bit of humor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I mean, aside from the fact you are completely wrong regarding WP:ONUS, which by its mere definition is about onus being upon those arguing for inclusion and not exclusion, levelling unfounded accusations of being "haters" and part of the MAGA cult against those who oppose you is in ridiculously poor faith. Not everyone who doesn't want to speedily add another adjective to the lead sentence is part of a great Trumpian conspiracy, yknow! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Yeah, this horse needs more flogging. It probably won't earn you a sanction for WP:NPA vio, but it most assuredly violates WP:AGF—a core principle around here. And then to invoke AGF yourself? Not a good look! There is probably some MAGA-cult influence going on here, but we have it under control—by semi-protecting this page, flagging WP:SPAs, etc. I'd wager real money that a substantial majority of editors who oppose changing the first sentence are not Trump supporters. Per AGF, we should not have to declare that to earn your respect. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I find it interesting that IPs and SPAs continually claimed that we were biased against Trump, but now that Trump has been convicted of some crimes, we're being criticized for being biased for Trump. Pick a lane please. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) This surprises you? As long as we declined to remove or whitewash negative facts about Trump, the 35% Trump-supporting base complained; now the 63% who dislike Trump are complaining that we're whitewashing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Since you have put a lot of effort into elucidating your thoughts, I'll analyze them in detail. For the record, if anything. -- The WP:ONUS really is on the haters here. Haters. Haters of what, exactly? And, no: "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It is a simple and important statement of fact that Trump is a convicted felon now, especially given that the accountability is on the accused when convicted, not us for playing the PR firm for his candidacy. So this RFC is being completely abused as the WP:NOTABLE well-sourced information should be in the article UNTIL an RFC says otherwise as it is NOT WP:UNDUE to leave it out. It is a fact that Trump is a convicted felon. And I'm interested in your "UNTIL". I disagree, per WP:STATUSQUO, which, though being relatively vague, advises one to stick to the status quo. If the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy also decided that a flat-Earth was somehow offensive and someone sought to run an RFC on the Earth wikipedia article or Flat-Earth article, forcing us to leave out or bury information about the world being round, would that make any sense just because a lot of editors felt strongly about it?! It's very entertaining, being accused of being part of the MAGA cult. I've been accused of being anti-Trump and pro-Trump within, like, a day. No, it wouldn't make sense. But that's not what's happening here. Please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. And the assumption that the people "driving this needless controversy" are part of some MAGA cult is unfounded. When it comes to statements of fact-- and for many, a flat-Earth or the existence of Jesus or the crimes of Donald Trump or the existence of the Holocaust are very heated and controversial for many zealous people and in much the same way-- "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article. For example, the article on Earth does not mention the fringe flat Earth theory." And likewise we shouldn't water down this article simply because the very act of doing implies that a serious & matter-of-fact conviction of a criminal may in some way questionable, as the Trump cult is attempting in its gaslighting of the public. The proposal here is not to remove the phrase from the article, or even from the lead. It's about whether the words "convicted felon" should be included in the first sentence. The conviction is obviously DUE, regardless of if we include info about the conviction in the first sentence or not. Side note: most historians agree that Jesus, in some form, existed—see Historicity of Jesus. It is a fact that this is the definition of WP:NOTABLE when Trump is the first President in the history of America to be properly convicted by a jury of his peers-- a trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and which must be respected as far as long standing legal precedence goes regarding the American justice system and the American Constitution dictates for its citizens. No one (no one) that is anything shy of incompetent is arguing that the conviction is wholly non-notable. As I said before, the conviction itself being notable doesn't mean that Trump is notable due to the conviction. So, given all that, this should NOT be WP:CENSORed in the way it presented and buried in the article when this is simply a statement of fact. If facts somehow are politically biased then that's on the the subject themselves, not us simply for reporting it. We already do report it, in the lead: "In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, making him the only former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime." So it's not censored, though I don't think that's the right guideline here. Facts can't be biased—the way they are presented can be. If Mr.Trump or Al Capone or Harvey Weinstein or Ted Bundy are made to look bad because of how the facts are presenting on their Wikipedia articles, then that's on the (convicted) criminals, not on us for merely reporting it. Yes. But comparing Trump to Ted Bundy, Al Capone or even Harvey Weinstein... come on. Ted Bundy is notable only due to his crimes. Al Capone is notable primarily (primarily!) due to his crimes. Harvey Weinstein is notable due to his business ventures, primarily the Weinstein Company, and his crimes, which started an entire global movement. Trump doesn't even come close, as least as of now. This is just cherrypicking, and not even great cherrypicking. To be clear, Trump was convicted 34 times for 34 felony crimes and has many more indictments he faces. That is a criminal, factually-speaking. Yet, using the diplomatic language "convicted language" for a serial criminal here as an American jury now has decided he is completely insync with other articles that mention such important information in the opening paragraph. That this is not included in ALL articles for serial-criminals like Mr.Trump is not a rule that should exclude said information from this page. 1) Insync with which articles exactly, pertaining to the first sentence? Read List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. 2) Sure. There's no rule. Only policies/guidelines and precedent. Precedent is clear. Policies and guidelines, less so. If the haters here are upset about the fact that Mr.Trump is being referred to as a "convicted felon" because it is controversial to do so, then we should simply mention that as well since that is also part of the news for this. We could say: "Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, businessman and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States of America and was the first President to be tried and convicted of crimes in a controversial episode of American history." Or something along those lines. Haters, again. I'll ask the question one more time: haters of what, exactly? Also, I don't think many people are arguing that we shouldn't include it in the first sentence because it is controversial to do so. I've summarized the main argument too many times to count, so I'll spare you the read. "...in a controversial episode of American history" isn't very encyclopedic. Seen another way... when looking at what IS allowed in the opening sentence: "Donald Trump is an American politician..." He is one of many, MANY American politicians. So that's not all that special. And that label too is controversial. Should that be left out given the similar insincere fallacious logic that I've seen employed here?! That's not the argument being made here. Most people aren't stating that Trump isn't all that special due to the fact that he is one of many American felons. Again, I don't think most people are arguing that we should leave out the phrasing in the first sentence due to the fact that it is controversial. And the comparison itself falls flat under examination. "...and the 45th President of the United States and the first President in American history to be convicted of multiple felony crimes." Guess what? There is no other President in the United States that can share that distinction. If that isn't important or WP:NOTABLE then nothing is. And yet so many here in an example of Wikipedia online-mob rule are saying that this isn't as important as the other more common and equally controversial labels also mentioned in the opening paragraph. This is an example of a WP:FRINGE violation in the sheep's clothing of an abused RFC. It is notable. I don't think that anyone is arguing that it isn't. "Politician" or "businessman" are no more controversial than "convicted felon". They are all neutral and verifiable facts. Which is why, again, I don't think that anyone is sincerely arguing against the inclusion of the words due to the fact that they are controversial. Again, the WP:DUE information should be restored immediately UNLESS a group of admins close this dispute with proper reasoning as to why is should be WP:CENSORed. Because the idea suggested by some that this should remain watered-down and buried "for weeks if not years" because this happens to be about a convicted criminal with incredible political power behind him is wikipedia failing at its most important duty, to inform the reader, not 'protect them' from the truth. For reasons I've explained multiple times, I disagree. Status quo and stuff. And this is not Wikipedia failing—this is a major success for the system. -- Ultimately, some of your arguments make sense, if we were talking about removing the conviction from the lead entirely. But we aren't. This RfC is about the first and most prominent sentence in the article. Cessaune [talk] 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Comment and I again reiterate my Strong Support for the mention of "convicted felon" in the first or second sentence. @Mandruss and @Cessaune Okay, I have reviewed the fallacious deck-stacking and accusations of bad faith against me. Yet this is that interesting rare example of WP:AAGF. Because of simply glaring absurdity in arguing that we should 'bothsides' patently false & obscene matters, subjects like Holocaust denial or the 2020 election denialism or now this 'American-justice-against-the-powerful' denialism, for lack of a better label. In the case of the Holocaust, for example, the real scheme of the denialism there isn't to actually argue that the holocaust didn't happen. It's code used by disturbed people for saying the feelings of those Holocaust victims don't matter. And same goes for this new justice denialism that says we should treat Donald Trump differently than any other multiply convicted felon since the victims of his crimes don't matter. This wasn't parking tickets. It's 34+ convicted counts of trying to interfere with the 2020 election, for which the American justice system found he was guilty of doing unequivocally. And all this tut-tutting in the world over this won't change that we are simply treating a now convicted 'serial-criminal' and dangerous anti-Democracy cult leader (aka.Donald Trump) differently than we would any other person when it comes to reporting on it in a way that absolutely benefits the readers with all the gaslighting and disinformation he is using in service of his American coup attempts. And I have too much respect for the wikipedia mission to treat our projects with the highest level of journalistic integrity as I do for good journalism overall that I won't laugh it off, or my legit concern, as some of you are doing. Journalistically speaking, there is no President in American history that comes close to the brazenness and quantity of criminal activity and behavior that Trump has exhibited, and that's not a philosophical argument to be made. It's based on the facts, and that notoriety alone is why it is WP:NOTABLE and worth mentioning. And if calling Donald Trump a "convicted felon" in headlines around America (and the world) is good enough for major respected publications then it should be more than good enough for us. In fact, we have even removed the mention of "2020 election interference" from the lead, making it sound like this was simply just about "hush money" to the uninformed when that was central to the convicted and the allegations. Sorry, but too many here are missing the WP:POINT. So "flog this horse" all you want, Mandruss, because it doesn't change the fact that this horse is higher than your soapbox. EmmaRoydes (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) You don't need to reiterate your support every time you comment. You're just making the closer's life a little harder. I agree with WP:AAGF. Simultaneously, I believe that you are not assuming good faith. I analyzed your sentences in detail and spent a long time crafting a response, so merely because at first glance it might seem to be present–no. Simply speaking: when you accuse people of being part of the same MAGA cult that is driving this needless controversy, I am willing to accuse you (with evidence, so as to not be WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS or anything) of not assuming good faith. I differentiate between accusing someone of bad faith and accusing someone of not assuming good faith. They aren't the same. I don't think we are treating Trump any differently than anyone else. Precedent is clear: we don't talk about the crimes of convicted American politicians in the first sentence of their bios, the vast majority of the time. Wikipedia is not a journal. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And if calling Donald Trump a "convicted felon" in headlines around America (and the world) is good enough for major respected publications then it should be more than good enough for us—that's not how we operate here. We refer to Trump's crimes in the lead already. Including the mention of the 2016 (I assume that's what you meant to say) election interference is just too much. The lead is bloated as it is. And the election interference is one of three federal crimes–do we include the other two? I think the phrasing is fine as it is. Cessaune [talk] 22:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) if were only talking about the first sentence, why has adding it to the second sentence been shut down? Thats inconsistent logic Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC) What was shut down was the adding of the words "convicted felon" to the second sentence while this discussion is still going on. You can see why below at #Burying the Lede. Cessaune [talk] 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC) in that discussion, the point was made that the rfc expanded beyond the first sentence and was about "convicted felon" being displayed promininetly at all. You cant just expand and contract the scope of what is being argued just to suit your own arguments. Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) If somebody adds "convicted felon", anybody can remove it, given that they abide by consensus #43's clause that [t]he mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. Essentially, they need a valid reason to remove it. The ongoing discussion is, in my mind, a valid reason: in my admittedly few years of editing here, this is the second biggest RfC I've taken part in, though it is absolutely dwarfed by WP:V22RFC2. It is WP:GAMING the system to sneak it in in the second sentence. If anything, we'd have to start a new discussion on whether or not it should be added to the second sentence. The Arbitration restriction requires that one must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. In practice, this is essentially expanded to 1) either WP:Bold-refine your edit or 2) gather a consensus for it. So, since it's been reverted, anyone who wants to add it has to argue their case. However, I think that it's highly unlikely that anything will be added to the second sentence until after this RfC is over. Cessaune [talk] 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Placing it in the second sentence is neither GAMING nor sneaky. But, I don't think it should be done without anther discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I disagree that it isn't gaming (it's gaming if done to bypass this RfC IMO), but it doesn't really matter. Cessaune [talk] 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) It is gaming, and in fact it's the most egregious form of it - this RfC started as a question over the first sentence, but enough people have opined here about whether the first paragraph should be expanded to include this, whether it shouldn't but should still be in the lead, or (small minority) to remove it from the lead altogether. To go add it to a brand new second sentence while it's actively being discussed and opined on is textbook gaming, just because the RfC itself says "first sentence". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) No, what is WP:GAMING is wording the rfc in a way that applies to current consensus 50, but then expanding it to cover the entire pre-infobox lede. Simultaneously to using consensus 50,you argue that adding it to the second sentence is under the jurisdiction of this rfc. This is what im talking about with the scope of the rfc. The title needs to be amended to include "pre infobox" or the scope of this thread must be restricted to the *first sentence* Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) That's the definition of gaming. Discussions do not have to be "explicit" and can take their natural flow. Just because the discussion started as a discussion over the first sentence does not mean it's okay to add it outside the first sentence while that is being actively discussed on the talkpage, regardless of whether or not it's in this section, another section, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC) then consensus 50 shouldnt even apply to this rfc. After all this is about more than the first sentence right? Chamging my support to second sentence inclusion. Its the only compromiseEditing-dude144 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC) It could be gaming, or it could be a good-faith attempt at a compromise solution (that's what discussion is for, rumor has it), depending on the individual. To determine which would require mind-reading. RfCs sometimes stray from the initial framing, and that's tolerated because it's better than going to another time-consuming RfC for each alternative proposal. Competent closers can deal with it, although I don't envy them and I think they're grossly underpaid. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Consensus 50 may not be the most applicable, but the general concept of don't add a contentious edit being actively discussed on the talkpage to the article while that discussion is ongoing applies - otherwise known as BRD cycle - even if the discussion happened before the bold edit, if it's being contested/discussed, it shouldn't be added in the interim until the discussion concludes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Absolutely. What's under discussion is how should we handle the conviction in the lead, and that's NOGO territory for bold edits until the discussion is resolved. If we're talking about bold-editing a second sentence because it's not what the RfC was initially about, then my mistake and that is gaming. Perhaps less out of ill intent than inexperience, to AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC) weird, the topic reads this for me: NOTE: this RfC proposes to change current consensus item 50. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) RfCs sometimes stray from the initial framing, and that's tolerated because it's better than going to another time-consuming RfC for each alternative proposal. Try to relax that sphincter muscle. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) That just is bad faith, no assuming necessary Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC) I take it you mean "assuming bad faith". More inexperience, showing a misunderstanding of AGF. I don't doubt your good faith, I challenge your judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) no, I mean you said i should "Try to relax that sphincter muscle."??? Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, I know. That's about your judgment, not your good faith. So AGF does not apply. If I called someone an idiot, that would violate WP:NPA but not WP:AGF. There are good-faith idiots. Good faith: "honesty or lawfulness of purpose". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC) That's what a consensus "add 'convicted felon' to first sentence" would do, something the OP didn't know or realize. As for "gaming", seems I'm one of the refusing-to-be-herded who opposed the label in the first sentence with the caveat that I wouldn't oppose mentioning the verdict in a second sentence in an expanded first paragraph. Comment requested, comment delivered — don't want to be mistaken for someone who thinks Trump is not a convicted felon or shouldn't have been indicted or found guilty. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• Strong oppose: Partisans and poor writers like to shoehorn "...and convicted felon" into the first sentence of articles (bEcAuSe iT'S tRuUuUuuUUe!!). It's bad form (even in biographies of long dead people, or of other lawbreakers like Martha Stewart), it reeks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in this case, and it doesn't really teach readers anything useful. "Convicted felon" is a status, not an occupation, and there are a thousands things Trump has done or is that don't merit shoving into the first sentence. Is Trump's conviction noteworthy? Yes. Should it be mentioned in the lead? Yes. Is there a chance the conviction might be overturned on appeal, rendering "felon" status moot? Also yes. Let's not pretend that all readers (or Wikipedians, or journalists, or biographers) were born yesterday and only have the past two week's worth of published information for reference and worldview. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support for first sentence, strong support for first paragraph. I think that most observers would agree that Donald Trump is unlike other US Presidents in character. However, expressing that difference in a manner consistent with NPOV is challenging. The important fact that Trump is a felon conveys distinctive aspects of his character in a clear and indisputable fashion, better than any attempt to survey biographies and opinion pieces ever could.
  
  If including “convicted felon” in the first sentence is considered undue weight, it would be acceptable to put it in a second sentence in the first paragraph. But this absolutely should be in the first paragraph, as it illustrates factually and neutrally why this man is different from the other 43 past holders of the office of the President (yes, he’s #45, but Grover Cleveland is counted twice). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if Wikipedia was around during the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. I have no doubt that, starting on December 19, 1998, editors would be tripping over themselves to include "impeached!" in the first sentence of Bill Clinton, because OMG it's so important right now look at all the newspapers! But with time comes wisdom. Look at the Clinton's lead now: it's restrained and conservative but still addresses the Lewinski scandal and impeachment. Richard Nixon was also the only president who (very famously), resigned from the office, but that's not clumsily tacked onto his first sentence. We have absolutely no requirement to shoehorn breaking news into the first sentence or paragraph of any article, momentous as it may be. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to have a beard and Barack Obama is the first and only African-American president so far. Neither facts are shoehorned into the first sentence. I think far too may Wikipedians try to emulate the style of daily newspapers (which tells you what was important yesterday) rather than actual encyclopedias (which tell you what was important over the entire course of a subject's life). Nobody is arguing for excluding the conviction from the lead, but I think it's simply too soon (and amateurish) to insert "felon" into the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well a major problem with the article seems to be that there is no lede paragraph. It's just a single sentence. So that's the choice right now. There is another RFC for a whole paragraph down further though. Outcast95 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Note that Trump is the only president that is a billionaire.[16][17] Yet being a billionaire is not mentioned in the first sentence or anywhere in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strong support for mention of "convicted felony" in the lede and in the first paragraph and first sentence.

  Bob, it is debatable whether or not Trump is actually "a billionaire" since he a documented pathological liar. Trump's fraud and lies about his actual wealth are objectively backed by many verifiable sources, and the facts are that he has a lot less money than he has let on. The civil court judgment against him is a now adjudicated fact as far as the American courts go.

  That a President that is elected was very rich or poor is not all that notable since there have been many all over that spectrum. But Trump is uniquely the only President to commit many crimes, to be adhjucated as a rapist by the courts, and the only President to ever be convicted of multiple felony crimes by a jury of his peers. Trump's criminality is one of the most notable things about him, as most of his crimes for which he is accused of-- and now convicted of in part-- are about him trying to illegally overturn democratic elections. If that is not WP:NOTABLE then nothing is.

  I have to say, the kid gloves approach here has less to do with how wikipedia is supposed to operate when dealing with a verifiable fact like Trump's conviction, and is clearly more about not upsetting the aforementioned "MAGA-cult" readers. Apparently the taboo of possibly upsetting the Maga-movement is a thing now. Fits in with the cultural phenomena in the west of an ongoing assault on reality and empiricism, and this fallacious idea that there are "alternative facts", and other such unfortunate breakdowns in civilization that we are watching in occur in real-time, as others here have pointed out.

  As far the felon Trump goes, apparently a WP:FALSEBALANCE in how we deal with his convictions is okay where in every other area it would not be. I don't see how Trump is really any more important than any other person with a wikipedia article-- as far as wikipedia goes-- other than the exception we are going out of our way to make him by either twisting ourselves in pretzels as some are doing, or putting on the blinders and basically saying "Wikipedia is making me do it!" No, it's a choice. One made partially out of fear, hubris, dogma and denial.

  2601:282:8980:C0F0:54B:F9F2:66F:74E5 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Struck as IP was range blocked for block evasion after making this post. Meters (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support: He was convicted for acts in furtherance of election interference in the very same election that won him the presidency. I have yet to see an argument for why him trying to unfairly gain the presidency is less relevant than him having gained it. They seem inextricably linked to me. He potentially only won in the first place due to this exact interference. Jwueller (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: All three positions mentioned in the first sentence make Trump relevant for Wikipedia independently. He's been relevant as a businessman, he's been relevant as a TV personality, and he's been relevant as a politician. Nobody comes to this article to learn about "Donald Trump the convicted felon", and if that changes in the coming years it can still be changed then. --2003:CD:EF01:8800:3179:5E8D:F4FC:25D2 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we please stop replying to other user's choices, every argument has been made, and if people are not listening to yours they have already rejected them, the longer we keep on the longer this will take. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I got your notability and due weight right here.66.69.214.204 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose What is notable (or WP:DUE) about Donald Trump is that he is the first president to win a felony conviction, not that he simply won a felony conviction. This is impossible to clarify in a single leading sentence. I agree it should be placed higher up in the lead, but in a form that allows for the necessary context to be clarified to the reader. Simple claiming he is a felon in the first sentence would not give enough context to readers from 10 or 50 years later. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Being neutral does not mean sticking your head in the sand when it comes to basic facts. There is a difference between being neutral and engaging in undue "both sides" balancing. If I add "the sky is blue" to the opening sentence of the sky and a million other people oppose it, what's the neutral, objective, encyclopedic thing to do? Continually revert the change because there isn't "clear consensus"? No, of course not, that would be laughable. Just as laughable as what's going on here. Donald John Trump is the first President in history to be convicted of a felony. I don't care what your politics are, if you assert that this isn't so enormously notable that it deserves to be mentioned in at least sentence two if not sentence one of this article, then you are clearly deluded. If Wikipedia's mission is to not take sides, then by delaying action on this Rfc, it has badly failed in that mission, because every minute of inaction is a loud proclamation of non-impartiality and a victory for the partisan wiki-lawyers.66.69.214.204 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I'd like to think that I am not "clearly deluded", as I oppose both a sentence one and a sentence two proposal. I support a paragraph two rewrite with the info stuffed in there. But maybe I'm too far gone and my opinion should be discounted. Who knows. Where's the rush? Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. We don't have any good reason to attempt to get this information out as quickly as possible. And I don't get how doing so suggests that we aren't being impartial, or that we are taking sides. Can you point me to this partisan wikilaywering? If there is anything egregious the closer will discount it in the final !tally. Cessaune [talk] 21:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarassing yourselves. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) You're not helping your argument, with personal attacks. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm attacking bureaucracy and red tape. If you choose to take it personally, that's your problem. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Keep up with the snide remarks & others might seek your removal from the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Tone policing has entered the building. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) I don't see that your messages have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. However, they do seem to have a style that tries to belittle and criticize anyone personally whose opinions you disagree with, without naming them. I think I'm one of them and I think I can filter out that style from your messages when considering what you say, which doesn't seem to be anything new, just more aggressively stated. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Tone policing has sent backup. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Threatening dissenters is a great look. 2600:100C:B01A:96D3:FC69:5BBC:7D5A:6DBA (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Removed the harassment warning from your talk page without an edit summary I see. Also not a good look. Didn't you get in trouble with ArbCom for doing something similar? 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I asked a question and you didn't answer it, instead creating a strawman argument that doesn't attempt to control for differences. I would support adding "submerged" because if California were to fall into the sea tomorrow, millions of people would die. Not to mention the global impact of such a circumstance. Again, I'm curious: can you point me to this partisan wikilawyering? Because, unless you consider using polices and guidelines as fuel for an argument to be wikilaywering, I don't see any. People on both sides of this discussion are making claims that I don't agree with. But I don't see how that can be a partisan thing. Maybe I'm blind and you're correct, but until you provide some quotes, I'm gonna hafta disagree with you. Cessaune [talk] 13:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Mmm, no, that's hyperbole. Not a strawman. Millions of people haven't literally died, but US democracy has been substantially impacted, which affects millions of Americans. She/he/they are correct, you are blind. Y'all are missing the forest for the trees. 2600:100C:B059:ED61:5912:7D75:5F18:A889 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Well, if we assume that what was said was hyperbole, then it was, respectfully, not very useful as a comparison. One shouldn't use theoretical scenarios as evidence of a point if they are going to be blown grossly out of proportion–otherwise blind people like me will get confused. Also, I didn't conclude that the argument is false because I believed that a fallacy was committed. I disagreed with the main idea behind the comparison because I believed that a fallacy was committed. Two substantially different things. Yes, the conviction does have a far-reaching impact. But 1) it's far from the primary cause of his notability and 2) shoveling in "convicted felon" into the first sentence doesn't give readers any context at all. Which is why I support a paragraph 2 rewrite: we can actually talk about the conviction in a little more detail. Cessaune [talk] 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Well, if we assume that what was said was hyperbole, then it was, respectfully, not very useful as a comparison. No, that's not respectful at all. It was a perfectly apt analogy. Yes, the conviction does have a far-reaching impact. But 1) it's far from the primary cause of his notability... Ah, now THAT'S a strawman argument. He is not primarily notable as a businessman or media personality either, yet there they are in the opening sentence. And that's not an "other stuff exists" argument -- they belong there, and so does "only President convicted of a felony." 2) shoveling in "convicted felon" into the first sentence doesn't give readers any context at all. Nonsense. If we were talking about adding "cheeseburger lover" or "frequent malaprop" to the first paragraph, that would be shoveling. But we're not talking about something trivial or drive-by here. Readers will get context when they read on from the lede. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) "Convicted felon" is to Donald Trump as the sinking of California is to California? Come on. They are not the same. I won't humor the idea that they are in any way even remotely similar. It's a terribly one-sided analogy. He was primarily notable for being a businessman and a media personality before he ran for president. He is much more notable for being a president, true. However, he isn't notable for being convicted of a crime. He is notable for being the first US president to be convicted of a crime. The fact that he was convicted isn't notable in and of itself, and neither is the crime he committed. They both rely on the fact that he was president to be notable, at least to the standards that would allow us to potentially place it in the first sentence of Trump's bio. I don't get how this is a strawman argument. Can you clarify why you believe so? My statement is only "nonsense" if you believe that "convicted felon" provides necessary context to the reader, and it doesn't seem like you do: Readers will get context when they read on from the lede. Cessaune [talk] 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) The felony conviction rate for United States citizens and residents of New York State is approximately 8%. The felony conviction rate for United States Presidents is approximately 2.3%, with a raw count of ONE. It is plainly, visibly, patently of the same magnitude in the political world. Your arguments and similar ones made above are specious. I won't accuse you or others of being willfully blind, but you are being blind and misguided, and it is very silly. Y'all need to stop being ostriches -- stop treating this like an anomaly (misstatement, meant the opposite) stop treating this like it's trivial and common and give it the correct weight. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) In a previous message you wrote, "Y'all are missing the forest for the trees." — I think the forest is the total information about Trump in reliable sources, of which the current felon information is a relatively small group of trees. Since we are currently standing in the felony grove, one could easily lose sight of the whole forest. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) No, Bob. The trees are the minutiae of Wikipedia policy and bureaucracy, and the forest is factual, notable, historic, important and due weight changes that badly need to be made in a timely fashion. Notability delayed is notability denied. 2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I don't honestly care if you disagree with my viewpoint, and the viewpoints of others who agree with me, but I'm tired of this presumption of correctness from your point of view. I'm willing to engage with the points you make, as long as you drop this presumption of correctness. Otherwise this is just a waste of time. And I'm tired of being accused of being "blind" or "clearly deluded" or "misguided" by people on the supporting side. Claims like this need substantial evidence. If anyone who agrees with these claims could come forward and explain them? Notability delayed is notability denied: no. The farther away we shift from breaking news, the easier it is to discern true notability. Remember this? It was very notable, until it just... wasn't anymore. Now, I'm not suggesting that the examples are the same in magnitude, because they clearly aren't. But delaying action helps us to understand whether or not an event is notable. In this case, whether or not an event is notable enough to be placed in the first sentence, meaning that it has to be pretty freaking notable. Demonstrate that Bob is wrong: that we aren't standing in the felony grove. Because I would tend to agree with him. Cessaune [talk] 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I'm happy to explain why I "presume" I'm correct. I "presume" because this isn't a debate about whose opinion is correct. This is a debate where my side has presented clear and convincing factual evidence and your side has countered with "I disagree!" I in turn don't honestly care if you think the Earth is flat. No one outside of Wikipedia and the Flat Earth Society does. But that's what you're doing here, Cessaune. You're arguing that you're entitled to your own facts. You're not, and all the sea lioning in the world isn't going to change the fact that your side is pounding the table on the rules when you're dead wrong on the facts. 2600:100C:B05A:A168:6548:C721:E098:C68 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Remember this? It was very notable, until it just... wasn't anymore. Remember this? It was going to just disappear in a few months until it just... wasn't anymore. And it's completely besides the point. "We don't know what's going to happen with notability" is a classic crystal ball argument. It's extraordinarily notable now, and notability is not temporary. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose insertion in opening sentence Per common sense, WP:DUE, and several statements made by others above, particularly per . Trump’s trial(s) and conviction made headlines precisely because he is extremely notable for other reasons. The rush to make changes, often while the news cycle (such as it is) is still proceeding, is emblematic not of conscientious editing methodology and best practices but of a burning desire to see WP echo one’s own feelings. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His notability is based on being president, and his previous celebrity, not for being a felon. Of course we can mention this in the lead, but not in the first sentence. Not yet anyway. His notability is not for this crime, not remotely. Perhaps this will change. The felon label needs more context than the first sentence can provide. TheSavageNorwegian 15:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This belongs either in the first or at the very least the second sentence of the article. Trump is unique in that he is the first U.S. president to have been convicted of not one, but 34 felonies. I think that suffices to make it a defining characteristic. 20:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Another unproductive discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Extending the "California falling into the sea" analogy above: Corporate needs you to find the difference between the following two arguments. 1. It's too soon to call Trump's felony convictions notable. We don't know the long-term impact this is going to have. Other political developments might diminish its significance. 2. It's too soon to call California falling into the sea notable. We don't know the long term impact this is going to have. Climate change submerging other locales might diminish its significance.2600:100C:B02A:4C1B:BD69:3A48:D96A:2168 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) One can usually find such comparisons to support just about anything. Other stuff exists, and, in this case, the other stuff doesn't even exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) You keep using this phrase, "other stuff exists". I do not think it means what you think it means. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) I don't think anyone should speak for Pam. But I look at those two arguments you list, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at this, and I look at a million other good sources that document the massive sea change that the conviction has already caused, and I come away convinced that any unbiased, rational person would have to say they're the same argument. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) You're getting the argument wrong. Of course it's notable. That's not even debatable. Notable enough for first sentence, however? Maybe, maybe not. That's the point of this massive discussion. Cessaune [talk] 03:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) No ma'am, you're getting the argument wrong. There is no objective "maybe not" here. The floor is "notable enough for the second sentence", tops. 66.69.214.204 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Fine, then. At the very least, you're getting my argument wrong. I don't understand what you mean when you say There is no objective "maybe not" here. Care to clarify? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 07:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately, the editor may be unable to respond for a week because the page has been semi-protected. [18] Seems like the soonest the editor can respond is 4 days if the editor registers an account and makes 10 edits. Alternatively the editor could respond on your talk page and you could copy it here, which is admittedly a bit cumbersome though quicker than 4–7 days. Just giving possibilities and not urging anyone to do anything. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• No this version of the WP:LEDE has a paragraph at the end that appears reasonable. WP:LEDE states: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I came here from WP:FRS[19] --David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also oppose for same reason I (and others) mentioned at Talk:Hunter_Biden#Convicted_felon_in_opening_sentence (permalink): Oppose in first sentence per Muboshgu: "WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone." and "it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes" and per Space4Time3Continuum2x: "MOS:LEADSENTENCE: 'Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE:The felony conviction is not the most notable thing about him...'" Also WP:Crime labels.

I'd like to know if there is anyone here who wants it in the first sentence would also do the same for at Hunter Biden, or is this a double-standard based on partisan hatred for one other side of a two-party duel for hegemony.--David Tornheim (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — From the New York Courts website,^[20]

  Felonies are the most serious types of crimes. Examples of felonies include:

• Murder
• Rape
• Robbery
• Arson
• Selling or possessing controlled substances

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support While it may not follow the same pattern as other convicted felons, Trump's label as one comes with much more notoriety, controversy, and most notably, public and media attention. It is largely relevant to his role in society and history and notable to his biography.--–uncleben85 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Super strongest possible oppose triple stamped it no erasies with a cherry and a little MAGA hat on top. I don’t really feel that strongly about it, I just find some of the gradations of support/oppose used in RfCs to be absurd so I’m joining in. I note the relative dearth of source citations to support this being DUE for the first sentence. And how could it be, having happened only last week? Arguments about the historical significance are WP:CRYSTALBALL, and arguments about the underlying crime being the reason for him becoming president in the first place have not been supported with source evidence. In my view, the opening sentence should take a lead from our guidance on categorisation, and apply labels only where sources commonly and consistently use them to introduce the subject. He’s back in the news for rambling about sharks, and sources are still introducing him as former President Donald Trump, not “convicted felon Donald Trump”. The label is not yet one of his main defining characteristics. It’s due enough to explain somewhere in the lead, just not in the first sentence. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Listed at Wikipedia:Closure_requests ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in first sentence. The lead sentence is for major aspects of the article (MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which for Trump is his political and media/business careers.. At this point, it is too soon to say if Trump's convictions will be that, and inserting it there is probably a BLP violation because it is currently UNDUE. It is of course fine to say in the lead, though preferably in a "Trump was convicted of X" instead of the vague and unhelpful "convicted felon" verbiage. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes for this discussion

Notes

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