Talk:Donald Trump

message: Jury of 12 peers convicted him on all 34 counts of felony and he finally won the popular vote. :p
AP news report on 'hush money' trial jury verdict
I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?
*Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal:  
*Felony counts. Current version:  Proposed version: 
Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead tags excessive detail 

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

message: This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example,  tells us little about the case. Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article and was DOA, maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign:  I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Can someone please include DJ Trump's new official title as first convicted felon in American history..? Much appreciated.. Dynamic City (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And in a twinkling of an eye the offending passage has vanished.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits 

message: I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't I already answer that?  allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using  instead of , creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Wikipedia. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Computer programming? Wikipedia is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

text: That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for Economy is Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, for Climate change, environment, and energy it's Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be Donald Trump, Page 2), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done now, and scope expansion is often counterproductive.This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Bypassing the Presidency article

message: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of small fire

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  with  may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges in the Miami case 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wealth 

message: 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)
replies: text: ?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the Jan 6 commission 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "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  tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline tag in the lead after being reverted 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard §&nbsp;Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?]]

message: I don't have extend protection privileges but the date on the article currently says June 30, 2024 instead of May. SeizureSaladdd (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous date for hush money jury conviction 

message: Now that he’s been convicted of a crime (in this case 34 counts of falsifying business records), would it be appropriate to add the criminal infobox? I’m not saying to convert from officeholder to criminal, but rather add criminal which would list the charges he was convicted of, his sentence (he hasn’t been sentenced yet, so that’s a moot point right now), and so on.
Now, if this hasn’t already been done, I had been thinking that the category American criminals could be changed to 21st century American criminals since he was convicted of crimes during the 21st century. If you would prefer to retain the current category, that’s fine by me. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Do we add infobox criminal after conviction?<span class="anchor" id="What_we_do_after_conviction"></span> 

message: First sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman" should have a comma after "personality". Oxford commas are great for reducing confusion. For example:
"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus and Debby."
"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus, and Debby."
I don't have enough edits on this wiki to do it myself. ThistleChaser (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! Thank you. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Not only because I prefer the Oxford comma, not only because this article uses the Oxford comma throughout, but because the Oxford comma is present in our current consensus item 50. Correct move, settled issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: During the editing frenzy of editors adding and removing "convicted felon" to the first sentence the serial comma survived until this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a missing Oxford comma 

message: Donald J Trump is a convicted rapist for the rape/sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol 87.49.45.83 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He was found liable in a civil trial, not a criminal one. Wikentromere (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: He is not a convicted rapist, he was found liable in a civil trial and was not convicted by a jury of his peers in that regard. CIN I&II (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald J Trump convicted rapist of E. Jean Carrol 

message: His criminal convictions were added to the infobox yesterday and I reverted them, but they were re-added. (1) They should be removed until a consensus is met in the spirit of the BRD. (2) Similar to the RfC on "convicted felon" in the first line, these parameters in the infobox should only be included when DUE, and they are not considering the RECENTISM of the convictions and the relative WEIGTHT of the massive amount of RS coverage of Trump and his life. He is not a someone primarily known as a criminal.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree but I've reached my limit of 3 reverts for today. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't.  – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Muboshgu, please refer to Talk:Donald_Trump#What_we_do_after_conviction where there is obvious consensus formed for the inclusion in the infobox. TarnishedPathtalk 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:TarnishedPath, FYI . Bob K31416 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bob K31416 thanks for that although I'm unsure why you pinged me. Special:Diff/1226595859 and then Special:Diff/1226631131 are where the changes occurred. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Just trying to let you know that there was a problem, in case you didn't know, and that the link was now working. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Thanks for that in any case because I'd used that link a few times when closing EC-protected edit requests. TarnishedPathtalk 11:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: The comments of the two editors in this section indicate there is no consensus, and I make it three against. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, there is existing discussion that I pointed to. TarnishedPathtalk 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the opposing editors pointed out in #What_we_do_after_conviction, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". BLP issue, and WP is not a democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly applies here as if I even need to say that because he's clearly been convicted. I fail to see what BLP argument you have. Again discussion is clearly happening in another thread where there is clear consensus. If you think that editors are misguided in their discussions, perhaps you should contribute there. TarnishedPathtalk 16:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Iamreallygoodatcheckers My two cents: in the American legal system, convictions are not considered final until at least the sentencing phase and until direct appeals have been exhausted. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Actually, he is primarily known as a criminal now. He's in fact the *best known criminal in the world* precisely because of his previous public career. 176.94.78.33 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: @Space4Time3Continuum2x how do you suggest noting the conviction in the infobox is a BLP violation then? TarnishedPathtalk 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Space4Time3Continuum2x tagging only one editor who you know will go along with you is WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you tag all involved editors from the discussion I referenced. TarnishedPathtalk 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notified Checkers as an editor in this discussion of the infobox who is probably not aware that the inaptly named other discussion is also about the infobox. That's not canvassing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Space4Time3Continuum2x you have selectively pinged an editor, while at the same time not pinging other editors already involved in the discussing the topic. That is clearly WP:CANVASSING. Are you going to rectify that? TarnishedPathtalk 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's to rectify? We don't need two discussions on the same subject. The other three editors in this discussion (you, me, and Muboshgu) are already aware of the other discussion and have now contributed there, and the editors involved in the other discussion don't need to be pinged to that discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of criminal convictions in the infobox 

message: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, could face significant travel restrictions as many countries around the world enforce strict immigration policies against individuals with criminal records". Hypothetical at present! Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, lets wait until someone says no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travel ban in 38 countries  

message: please would someone remove it, as I will not edit war soibangla (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve got it, there’s like one guy who keeps adding it back WxTrinity (talk to me!) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: If it continues, please point me to whoever is edit warring it back in and I can partial block them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I found them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  convicted felon is back in the first sentence again 

message: Are we going to need full protection? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PP 

message: I think I will make a couple small changes today or tomorrow in the redundancies of words on the page such as "comments regarded as racially charged, misogynistic, and racist." There are also a couple places of wording that seems to be implying meaning other than their initial value, like "putting travel banned on Muslim-majority countries" instead of "middle eastern countries"- seems to indict him of doing it because it's Islamic religion and not because of obvious geopolitical reasons. LunarEcho87 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The heading "Travel Ban" suggests an original target of Muslims, later revised to countries with terrorism. The body does not use "Muslim-majority" like in the lede, and The Gaurdian article cited also does not use the phrase. The corresponding Trump travel ban does use the phrase, however (majority-Muslim). Sr Desayuno (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: You must be an extended confirmed editor (the account must have existed for at least 30 days and made at least 500 edits) to be able to edit this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redunancies and subjectively agressive 

message: This edit is nonsense.  Current consensus #50 regards the first sentence.  Nothing about current consensus is violated by adding a second sentence to the first paragraph, and it is grossly irresponsible to bury something as historically significant and currently notable as the felony conviction of a former President.   Rogue 9 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You ain't kidding, the sheer anal retentiveness is staggering Gold2040 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: For clarity, how about a link to a diff instead of to a revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, sorry about that. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Granted, consensus 50 does not preclude a second sentence. So the editsum could have been better. But I can guarantee you that no BOLD edit regarding this conviction is going to be accepted without prior consensus, so it doesn't really matter. If I had seen that second sentence added, I would have reverted with the editsum "under discussion, no consensus". At this article, we don't trample on process because we feel it's "grossly irresponsible". This may differ from what you're used to elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about notable, verifiable facts of historic importance.  If the consensus is to not include said facts, the consensus runs counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Rogue 9 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do mention the  in the lead. We're discussing whether and, if so, how to mention them in the first sentence or paragraph. Patience, he's going to be a convicted felon for a long time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Will he though? Considering the court case? Slamforeman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The signing of Trump Organization checks by a sitting president and colluding with Weisselberg to book them as business expenses as official acts? Hm — food for thought. I must have a flag around here somewhere I can fly upside down. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Was it Cal Coolidge who said the business of America is business? Similarly, the business of Wikipedia is consensus. Not what individual editors claim is the purpose of an encyclopedia. That will never be seen as a legitimate argument around here, and there aren't any such trump cards in Wikipedia editing. You want to do something controversial, you get consensus for it. Period. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define what is controversial about the fact that Trump is the first former President convicted of a felony.  Is there a reliable source stating that some other former President was convicted first, or that the verdict read out in the Manhattan courthouse was fabricated?  Rogue 9 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's controversial is placing this in the first sentence, and, to a slightly lesser extent, in a second sentence. That is what you propose to do because it's the purpose of an encyclopedia. Placing it lower in the lead wouldn't be so much controversial in itself, but the exact placement and wording would likely need consensus anyway. The wheels of justice Wikipedia editing turn slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you'd better hop on over to Richard Nixon and remove the statement that he's the only U.S. President to resign from the first paragraph there, then. This isn't different.  Rogue 9 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He resigned in 1974, not two days ago. Also, he's dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: With more experience, I think you'll find that one can find such comparisons to support pretty much anything—with interminable debates about apples and oranges (see preceding). It's a pointless waste of mental energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I think the removal of the note was due to a misunderstanding — I didn't get it at first either. The editor was right in removing your bold edit since mention of the conviction in whatever shape or form to the first sentence or the first paragraph of the lead is under discussion right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC is specifically about the first sentence.   Rogue 9 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Although it's not in the first sentence, I think the two editors think it's close enough to wait for a decision about the first sentence before proceeding with a discussion about putting it in the second sentence. That seems reasonable, or is there some urgency? You might try making your case at the RFC, even though it is about the first sentence. For example make the comment that you think it should be in the second sentence and why. I don't expect you'll get a consensus over there but you might get some ideas about it. In any case good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the closer saw a consensus for a new second sentence, I don't think they would have a problem with declaring it in their closure, regardless of the original framing of the RfC question. It's pretty common to have editors step outside the defined scope of an RfC. I'm known for saying that Wikipedia editors are cats that refuse to be herded. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I made my position quite clear in the RfC before ever starting on this.  We're here doing this because I am following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as directed in the notes in the edit field of the article.   Rogue 9 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. I would recommend that you wait to see what happens with the RfC, especially since there does not seem to be any support here for your edit at this time. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Did you really think you were being clever by adding "convicted felon" in a super-short second sentence, that this would bypass the consensus required for the opening? I mean, you really truly thought you found a silver bullet? Zaathras (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about a silver bullet?  The consensus dictates the structure of the first sentence, not anything after it; if you want it to say something else, then it should say something else.  This information belongs at the head of the article because the conviction of a former President is a notable and historic event.  Rogue 9 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: You're WP:GAMING. Let the discussion take place rather than trying to bypass it. — Czello (music) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am most certainly not.  The discussion is taking place and I have done nothing to prevent it.  If it comes to the manifestly correct conclusion that Trump's singular status as a convicted former President should go in the first sentence, then great, that would be even better.  Rogue 9 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is gaming. By putting it into the second sentence you're simply bypassing the discussion above; it ignores the spirit of the discussion. — Czello (music) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: The presence of convicted felon/the jury's verdict in the lead is already under discussion. Yes, that discussion started as whether it should be in the first sentence or not, but it's clear from reading even the first dozen or two responses that the discussion is also over whether it should be in the second sentence, the first paragraph, a later paragraph, or not at all. Making an controversial edit while discussion is ongoing on the talk page is textbook edit warring. (ec resolved) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burying the Lede 

message: Since the conviction in the hush money case four days ago, many things have changed. I will be expanding the "Criminal conviction..." section unless anyone can provide a good reason not to.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , please see WP:ONUS. The burden for demonstrating it should be expanded is on you. There is no burden for us to suggest that it shouldn't be. How about telling us what you think should be added? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the "Criminal conviction...." section 

message: current consensus item 10 should be amended, since the article Barron Trump now exists, and no longer redirects to "his section in Family of Donald Trump". Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair to me. I'm tempted to just do it, but we need a little more agreement to cancel an existing consensus. (And it would be a cancel, not an amendment. This discussion would be linked at the end of the canceled item. The difference is that a canceled item is hidden, while an amended item is not. Thus the consensus list would appear essentially as if Barron's BLP had always existed—while preserving the history of the issue.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: This is a bit more complicated than I thought at first glance.It looks like Barron Trump became an article in June 2019, a couple of years after consensus 10 was established. Since the redirect was removed, and this article's link was not piped to the Family article, this article has been linking to the BLP since then anyway. And lo and behold, that's what the OP said.Since there is no case for piping our link to target the Family article again, I don't see any choice but to cancel 10. To hopefully save some time, I will go ahead with that and I'm revertable if I'm missing something. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: American royalty, apparently, offspring of . Well, Trump's abode as a toddler had an article, too, so ... (They play the national anthem at the Easter egg roll?)  Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: With #10 no longer in the way, Nikkimaria promptly removed all children links from the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how long it will take before they reappear. Oddly, that's one thing I don't care about. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amend current consensus item 10 

message: Since Trump was proven to have commited fraud, it is biased to highlight his business ventures without mentioning the fraud he has committed. Portraying some one as a businessman lends credibility to someone who has been proven to act in illegal capacities rather than just legitimate business.  Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 50. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: how do you view the current consensus items? I honestly can't find them Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You were just provided a helpful link. Try clicking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link doesn't work. This one does Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me. It has always worked for me and, presumably, everybody else (no complaints until yours). I don't know why it doesn't work for you. It's merely a section link, like Talk:Donald Trump#Home at birth. While one can link to the subpage, we usually link to the transcluded section on this page. It's also the first entry in the table of contents on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is visible/usable on a mobile device. This is the only link that has worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that, being mobile-ignorant. I wonder how mobile users have gotten by for so long, and this should be taken up with the developers, whoever they are. We do section links all the time, and not just for the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a mobile editor, we can use section links, but we have to press an extra button to see talk page banners, like the consensus list. Section links therefore do not work for those banners. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  But our consensus list is not a banner. The transclusion is the only thing that makes it different from any other section on this page. I don't see why this would make a difference. Anyway, your comment seems to contradict Editing-dude144. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As a user who only ever edits on mobile, the mobile version of the site hides everything above the first level-2 section behind an extra click. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved the section heading from the subpage to this page. Can you see the consensus list now? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, that fixes the section link. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Every major company in America has convictions on record. Do you think that doesn't make them real businesses? That's just how business is conducted in the U.S. at least. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of businessman in first paragraph of lede <span class="anchor" id="Edit request: remove mention of businessman in first paragraph of lede"></span> 

message: Trump has self-identified as a political prisoner. Should this rhetoric be added to the article? GobsPint (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He says a lot of things so I don't think this is automatically a yes but if this becomes an significant and ongoing talking point for him, and it gets non-trivial coverage from Reliable Sources, then maybe. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Lol, no. The Wikipedia does not traffic in delusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the OP is proposing wikivoice. If there is adequate RS support, we can report delusions. As always, one question is (1) this article and a sub-article, or (2) only a sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Only if it receives sufficient on-going coverage. That would probably only happen if he became an actual prisoner. TFD (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we need a new article on delusional claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political prisoner