Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 179

Archive 175

←

Archive 177

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

→

Archive 183

Is he "convicted"?

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 found guilty by a jury in certain cases, but he has not yet been formally convicted because the judge has not entered a conviction by imposing a sentence. Conviction only occurs after sentencing, and in some cases, there may be additional legal proceedings (like appeals) before that happens. This, is not an opinion but a matter of legal fact that conviction has not occurred, and cannot occur until the prerequisites are satisfied. On top of the following, I suggest we be cautious with the WP:RS we use for this topic for the sake of accuracy. Wikipedia does not have concrete rules, but rather has guidelines, therefore I suggest we don't just use any RS just for the sake of the argument as this is not something that can just be disputed, in a legal sense, it is simply how it is - my point here is that a news outlet, no matter how reliable should not be relied upon if they are incorrect on this topic, because the facts are that:

As of now, Trump is best categorized as someone who has been charged with crimes and in some cases, found liable in civil suits, but who has not yet been convicted in a criminal case, pending sentencing or appeal.

I will attempt to provide a sufficient breakdown for any editor's understanding for comment in regards to how the legal system categorizes someone like Trump at different stages of legal proceedings:

1. Charged with a crime: This is when criminal charges are brought against someone, but they have not yet been tried in court.

• In this case, Trump was charged with multiple criminal offenses, such as in the New York state case involving alleged hush money payments or the federal case related to classified documents.

2. Indicted (but not convicted): This is when a grand jury formally accuses someone of a crime, but the case has not yet gone to trial or resulted in a verdict.

• Trump was indicted in a number of cases, however, none of the criminal charges have been formally concluded in a conviction.

3. Guilty verdict (but not convicted): A jury may find someone guilty, but the conviction itself only happens after sentencing by the judge.

• In the case of the civil fraud trial in New York, Trump was found liable for fraud, but that’s not the same as being convicted of a crime. Civil liability typically results in monetary damages, not criminal punishment.

4. Conviction: This is the legal categorization that applies once a person has been formally convicted in a criminal case—after a trial (or plea) and a sentencing.

• Trump has not yet been convicted in a criminal case; he may face criminal convictions in the future depending on the outcomes of ongoing trials, sentencing, or appeals.

To conclude, legally speaking, Trump would currently be categorized as someone who has been charged with crimes and in some cases found liable (e.g., civil fraud), but has not yet been convicted in the criminal sense because formal sentencing has not taken place. If he is found guilty in criminal trials, then his legal status could change, but only after a conviction is entered.

To sum it up: He is not a convicted felon at this stage. He is facing various legal battles, and some may lead to convictions depending on the results of the trials and appeals processes. I therefore propose the following potential changes to discuss:

• Change from making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony. to something of the following nature:
  • ... making hime the first president in U.S. history who has been found liable for xyz...
  • ...making him the first president in U.S. history who has been charged of xyz...
    • IF either of these are true ofcourse - I am not familiar if there have been other U.S. presidents who have been found liable or charged as above

Artem...^Talk 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you lay out the sourcing here you think best supports this change? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The process:

_

Indicted (but Not Convicted)

• 5th Amendment: No one can be tried for a capital or infamous crime without indictment by a grand jury.
• Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 7): Governs the process by which a grand jury issues an indictment in federal cases, or a prosecutor files an information in a misdemeanor case. In Trump's case, multiple indictments were issued after grand jury proceedings.

Guilty Verdict (but Not Convicted)

• In civil cases like the New York fraud case, liability is determined by the preponderance of evidence (not "beyond a reasonable doubt"). New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) would apply which outline procedures for civil suits and the determination of liability.
• Criminal Verdict: If Trump were to be found guilty in a criminal trial, a conviction would follow. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines or state sentencing laws would then apply, depending on the jurisdiction.

Conviction

• The Sentencing Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq.) governs the sentencing of federal offenders.
• U.S. Code Title 18: Outlines the definition of crimes, their penalties, and the process of conviction.

Artem...^Talk 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Artem P75 Thanks for listing these out, unfortunately they do not verify for Wikipedia's purposes what you are proposing. They require analysis which can only be done by reliable secondary sources. If you think what I'm saying isn't true, it's best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard to receive input. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I will try and find secondary RS to support Artem...^Talk 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

NY hush-money case: again, the article doesn't label Trump a convicted felon. This is what the ABA white paper cited in the earlier discussion says in the sentencing section: If the defendant is convicted in a criminal case, the judge will set a date for sentencing. So we're not wrong for saying he was convicted of a felony (plus all those RS and WP relying on RS ...) Civil cases: the article says that Trump was found liable. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 23:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

From the lede: "making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, according to RS (I cited several in the closed discussion) and the ABA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 23:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "the article doesn't label Trump as a convicted felon"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do we say that "Trump is a convicted felon" ("convicted" would be redundant anyway)? "Felon" is a label, "convicted of a felony" by a jury of his peers is the description of what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 00:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Editors who insist that the two are interchangeable are pushing a POV in my opinion. Words matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is not with it being a label, but referring to him as "convicted" (see the title of this thread). For the purposes of such a point, "convicted of a felony" and "convicted felon" are indeed interchangeable, even if the purposes of MOS:LABEL they are not. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just saying the word "felon" would be better left out of this discussion. It wasn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the word "felon" is at issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

To sum it up: He is not a convicted felon at this stage implies that we're saying it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 23:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I mistit. Thanks for clarifying. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As a stop-gap measure, in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:LBL, I am changing all references to 'convicted' to 'found guilty' until a clear consensus is reached. Riposte97 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I will ask you don't do that, as it doesn't align with the policies you linked and is likely to raise the temperature of this discussion. Material may be removed from biographies of living people under WP:BLPREMOVE: relevant in this case when "unsourced or poorly sourced". The sources used to verify that he is convicted are of sufficient quality. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to antagonise anyone, but WP:LIBEL is pretty clear that a cautious approach should be taken. Saying someone was convicted when in fact there has only been a finding of guilt is potentially libellous, because it may be taken to mean that the crimes were serious enough to warrant a conviction. In many (most?) common law jurisdictions, most low-level findings of guilt are discharged without conviction. That's all. I’m not saying he will or won't eventually be convicted, but we need to err on the side of caution. Riposte97 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor, for that matter, am I saying that consensus here won't actually opt for inclusion. However, in case we do decide that we shouldn't include the disputed term, then it's imo prudent to remove it now. Riposte97 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL does not say we should err on the side of caution. It does emphasise, within the first sentence, that our priority is verifiability; this material is sufficiently verified. If you think I'm misreading the policy, it'd be better to ask in a more centralized location for clarification such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. It's possible I’m mistaken, but I’m relying on the second sentence - 'It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.' Maybe this does need a noticeboard post. I’m slightly constrained as I’m on my phone at the moment, but will have access to a computer later today. Riposte97 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the second sentence is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous. It can be read as expanding the first sentence (i.e. defamation for Wikipedia's purposes is that which falls short of verifiability) or purely referring to the legal concept (which necessarily contradicts WP:No original research).

It is better for us to assume it is consistent with policies, hence the first read should be used.

That's my understanding anyway, if you think it's compelling or likely you can self-revert, if you disagree you can go to the noticeboard, although I would appreciate it if you explained where you think my reasoning falls short in the meantime. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, articles by reporters are reliable sources for news, but they are not legal experts. Interestingly, in the UK and Canada, people who are found guilty of offenses may be "discharged" without recording a conviction. While it's a differemt system, it shows that the two terms are not synonymous. TFD (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We are not legal experts either. Until someone provides law journals discussing this, news outlets reporting this are the best sources at hand for verifiability and are accepted on Wikipedia as sufficiently reliable for sourcing claims of conviction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Section 1.20(13) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law, which contains definitions, provides: "Conviction" means the entry of a plea of guilty to, or a verdict of guilty upon, an accusatory instrument other than a felony complaint, or to one or more counts of such instrument. Here, a jury verdict of guilty was rendered on the counts of the New York indictment against Mr. Trump, and it is therefore proper to state that he was "convicted" of those counts. It is, of course, also true that a motion to set aside the convictions is pending and that no sentence has yet been imposed or judgment rendered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is persuasive. Riposte97 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Persuasive enough to self-revert?

I think this leaves the question of whether the conviction should be characterized as a historical first at this juncture in the legal process. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is in reference to the matter of fraud, that is a civil case, not a criminal case. Civil liability does not equate to a criminal conviction. Being found liable for fraud in a civil case does not carry the same consequences as being convicted of a crime; civil fraud ruling would not result in jail time or criminal penalties like those in a criminal case. Section 1.20(13) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law would therefore not apply to the fraud civil case because that section specifically defines "conviction" in the context of criminal proceedings, not civil cases. Artem...^Talk 02:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is a criminal case. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The language Brad quoted includes the words "plea" and "guilty", which do not apply in civil cases. So it must be referring to criminal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that, I was asking because from my knowledge, he has only officially been found guilty in the fraud case? I have not been 100% up to date with his multitude of court cases - if I am wrong here please let me know Artem...^Talk 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing here the criminal case that was tried before Justice Merchan, not the civil case that was tried before Justice Engoron. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. All felonies (i.e., criminal). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, I have just looked over a few articles on this case - please disregard my previous comment Artem...^Talk 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do so. :)

I think this leaves the question of whether the conviction should be characterized as a historical first at this juncture in the legal process. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would personally think so - being the first ever actually convicted felon president in the 200+ year history in my eyes would certainly be historical Artem...^Talk 03:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Brad: It is, of course, also true that a motion to set aside the convictions is pending [...] - If said motion were granted, would it still be a historical first? If not, aren't we premature to assert one? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well if the motion were granted I would think not as it would no longer be the case that he is the first convicted felon to hold office. So in this case I would probably agree that we may be premature here, especially if sentencing has been postponed Artem...^Talk 03:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We just report what reliable sources are saying per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Show of hands, who's ready to close as resolved? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• close

Artem...^Talk 04:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This is likely to keep coming up. I'm not inclined to create a consensus item with so little participation, but editors might want to commit this section heading to memory so it can be easily found in the archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Close, both threads appearing to have been based on OP's misinterpretations. If said motion were granted, would it still be a historical first? Um — yeah? Not a legal question, I would think, but WP:PUBLICFIGURE. All of it, conviction, motion being granted for whatever reason (Trump's current argument for dismissal appears to be that sentencing would threaten government stability). Judge Merchan gave Trump’s lawyers until COB December 2 to file their arguments for dismissal and the prosecution a week to respond. Again citing Trump's favorite phrase: We'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's late here, but if there's still an open question, I'll comment in the morning, if closing this can wait until then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Following up on this, I think we have consensus that we can report that Mr. Trump is the first former President to have been convicted of felonies. If the conviction were to be set aside in the future, whether by the trial judge or on an appeal, that would mean the conviction was later adjudged to be invalid, and we would certain include that, but it wouldn't negate the fact that he was regarded as convicted at the time of the jury verdict. For examples of how Wikipedia has dealt with this type of situation in the past, see for example Bill Cosby or Jussie Smollett. Perhaps the wording would be something such as "Trump was the first former president to be convicted of felonies, but the convictions were subsequently overturned" or something similar, depending on just what exactly happens. That is probably as far as we can take the discussion at this stage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 25 November 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.

Grammar

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 the end of the second paragraph of this article, it says "In 2015 he launched a a presidential campaign." The letter "a" is repeated twice and needs to be removed immediately DisneyGuy744 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 26 November 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.

Inclusion of release of grades

I removed "In 2015, Trump's lawyer threatened Trump's colleges, his high school, and the College Board with legal action if they released his academic records" from the early life section saying it was "undue for this section". A few hours later, Farkle Griffen added it back in with the description "Explained why his academic performance is not known", not addressing the concern about whether it was giving it too much emphasis. Before I removed the text, I did a search of coverage, and found that the issue was very rarely mentioned after it was discovered, and only in passing. Giving it a relatively high amount of attention in the early life section therefore seems inappropriate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see that it was previously removed, but mentioning academic performance in school is relatively common in Wikipedia articles on biographies of political figures, and it's certainly relevant in a section about academic history; mentioning why this information is not available seems just as relevant. I don't see how a single sentence is too much emphasis. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Farkle Griffen Could you respond to the issue of coverage not being lasting (applying WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM)? I do believe the Early life section should be expanded; if that happened I would be more likely to support inclusion. Right now however, "one sentence" makes up 20% of Wikipedia's coverage of Trump's early life. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not that much in favor of keeping it, it just feels like a strange argument to say: "This section is too short... so we should make it shorter." But to respond to your first sentence, this news went viral around February 2019, which was five (nearly six) years ago; I could be wrong, but I don't think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply here. Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Re Farkle Griffen; it is a strange argument, but the idea is that the article is already very unbalanced against the Early life section, and this would make a negligible change to that imbalance, while the Early life section is very unbalanced towards this event, and removing it would make a significant change to that imbalance. See my reply below for RECENTISM in particular. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

coverage not being lasting You seem to be saying we shouldn't keep the content because RS is not still talking about it. That doesn't seem workable, since RS has other things to talk about. RECENTISM? What's recent about something that happened nine years ago? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of RECENTISM says "It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view," which is how I'm assessing DUE. The best sources for assessing whether biographical details are DUE in this sense are, obviously, biographies, as they are assessing how details fit into a life as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum, the absolute worst sources for this assessment are breaking news sources about a revelation about a biographical detail. As an example, Trump's eligibility for the draft received a lot more coverage than this over a longer time period. But biographies published after the fact treat it as a small issue in his early life overall. These sources are therefore insufficient to show it is DUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to imagine writing this article primarily based on published biographies, in which content can't be written or verified without a trip to the library or a book store. Are we to limit editing to editors who are prepared to do that (which would exclude me), or should the rest of us just take the word of those who are?

As a practical matter, you're not going to get consensus for reasoning that departs from how editors have operated here for eight years—unless you have uninvolved closure in which the closer is convinced by your arguments. You may be in the unfortunate position of being far superior to your colleagues. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't press this any further, there doesn't seem to be momentum. For my own benefit in determining if material is DUE on this page in the future, would "Coverage across multiple RS is sufficient to suggest inclusion is DUE" be an accurate summary of this discussion?

I will note that high-quality sources that are doing overall evaluations are most beneficial for DUE in creating the bones of the article. Editors still have to put meat on them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article has been dysfunctional in the DUE area for eight years. Some content has been added on the basis of one or two sources and accompanying "editorial judgment" that it's DUE. Other content has been omitted on the basis of 15 sources and accompanying "editorial judgment" that it's UNDUE. It seemed to me that DUE has been more about "editorial judgment" than anything else, which left the article wide open to editor biases. Thankfully, one of the main culprits was recently indefinitely banned from all things Donald Trump (not for that reason but for bad behavior), but they were only one. I can't fix the world. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on your experience here, what do you think should be done to help with NPOV? In a similar vein, you mention below that you are looking for arguments beyond editorial judgement, and you later indicated this was met. What was it that convinced you that DUE was met? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on your experience here, what do you think should be done to help with NPOV? In a better encyclopedia, ArbCom or WMF would intervene here. That's fantasy at this point, so I don't know what could be done. It's part of why I'm semi-retired. I'm just here for the mental stimulation, for interaction with other smart people (I don't do social media), because I have a talent for efficiency and organization that makes me a good facilitator on this page, and because I have nothing better to do with my time. What was it that convinced you that DUE was met? Six linked sources and the promise of about a dozen others, which I took at face value. We can talk about "larger issues" all day long, but we also have to get some work done. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's too much "editorial judgment" going on here. Somebody please present a persuasive DUE case for inclusion, based on RS coverage. Absent that, I support the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what DUE has to do with this since this doesn't seem to be a NPOV issue, however, for RS coverage, just going going off the first results on Google, this is mentioned by: Time Magazine , AP News, CNN, PBS News, NY Times, and WP, among about a dozen others. Granted, these are news stories, not biographies. Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, DUE has everything to do with all content. Granted, these are news stories, not biographies. I'd say 90%+ of the article is based on news stories; that's the nature of the beast. (As I interpret it, NOTNEWS mostly means we don't (or shouldn't) rush to publish breaking news.) Now, since I don't move goalposts, you have persuaded me unless someone can persuasively counter your case by showing how those sources don't support the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, "DUE" only refers to WP:DUE, which is a subsection of WP:Neutral Point of View, and only really talks about the due weight of a viewpoint. Am I wrong? Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, although DUE tends to be used as a shorthand for all weighting issues. WP:PROPORTION is more accurate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm no policy guru; much of it moggles my bind. All I know is that, in practice at this article and others where I've spent significant time, "viewpoint" is a very broad term loosely applied. Why don't you take this specific case to WP:NPOVN and (with any luck) educate all of us? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We need room for obvious reasons. Stuff like this should probably be on the chopping block. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

R. G. Checkers Why do you think this is undue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We are never going to make significant progress on article size one sentence at a time; might as well try to significantly shrink Lake Erie using buckets while others are pouring water into it with other buckets </hyperbolic metaphor>. Progress on article size will require gutting large parts of the article, such as much of the detail in "Foreign policy", moving to summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion at "Wording of sentence on Trump attending New York Military Academy" with more sources, above. Trump has claimed since the 1970s that he graduated at the top of his class at Wharton and that you had to be a super genius to be admitted to Wharton in 1966. Both claims were debunked, despite Trump not releasing his records. And in 2019 Michael Cohen turned over the threatening letters Trump had him send to Wharton and his high school. It wasn't just the news of the day, it's been mentioned in probably every Trump biography published since then. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As for need[ing] room for obvious reasons, that's [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]. My crystal ball thinks we'll end up with comparisons between his first and second presidency, resulting in fewer details for the first one. We'll have to wait and see what RS report about the second one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Space4Time3Continuum2x. I've got my copy of Trump Revealed to see the weighting they place. Their discussion of Trump's grades are quite limited, and only really discussed in the context of Wharton, which makes sense given that was a focus to establish credibility as a businessman. In their discussion of Trump at Wharton, they give an equal amount of value Trump ascribed to the degree, to his draft exemption, his later alumni contributions and how relatively wealth he was compared to the cohort. His education at Wharton covers four pages of the 20 dedicated to his early life.

A lot more of the text is spent discussing his aggression as a child and teen; this should be included before his grades are. If his Early life were expanded to the size of Barack Obama's, it should certainly be included. I'll check other biographies later to see how their emphases compare. The needing room comment may refer to the article's size already being very long. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The book was published in 2016, three years before Cohen told the NYT about Trump's efforts to keep his grades secret after harping about Obama's academic record for years. As if anyone but Trump would care about high school grades 50 years later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was published after this came out. In your estimation, how much more of the early life section would have been taken up by it if it had? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea. Pre-presidency content that went to character kept getting trimmed because of the avalanche of presidency events. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote win or loss?

“winning both the popular and electoral vote” this is from the newest section of the lead he did win the electoral vote but the popular vote is still being counted as of 11/8 11:20 EST he has only a 2.6% lead with millions of votes left to count particularly from California

this is assumption and there isn’t any vaild source claiming he did this needs to be removed immediately John Bois (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

From the cursory research I've just done, including NBC and NYT, it does appear a popvote loss is within the realm of possibility, so there may be a bit of WP:CRYSTAL there. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be removed until then? John Bois (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone may have to do that just to get some eyes on the issue. You don't need prior agreement for a bold edit that does not violate an existing consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Leave it be, until/if Harris passes him. PS - @John Bois: It would be best to first bring this up at 2024 United States presidential election, where Trump's pop-vote total is currently bolden, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@John Bois WP:THEHILL has reported a popular vote win for Trump; however, if it’s not already covered in the body it probably should be added. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

NBC NYT and AP have not declared it yet John Bois (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion at the 2024 election page, about your concerns. Honestly though, most of the networks must have confirmed that there's not enough (currently uncounted) votes left for Harris to overtake Trump, going by the percentage track. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! John Bois (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it’s up to editor consensus since we have some reliable sources reporting popular vote victory and some are not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are a few reliable sources claiming it, we should have it in until proven otherwise. There is pretty good confidence/credible info that points that direction. I think WP:CRYSTALBALL is more of unsubstantiated claims. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no harm in waiting for it to be official. California only has 63% reporting at the moment, there are more votes to come that at the very least will make it a narrow margin either way. Zaathras (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

Change ",making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony." To ", making President-elect Donald Trump the first convicted felon to hold the White House, after beating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris to return to office after leaving in explosive fashion four years ago. JaneenGingerich (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 and won the 2024 presidential election as the Republican nominee. He is set to be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.

Trump graduated with a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. He took over his family’s real estate business in 1971, renaming it the Trump Organization. The company became known for real estate development and branding. Trump also gained public recognition as the host and producer of the reality television series The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015.

He launched his first presidential campaign in 2015 and won the 2016 election. His administration focused on tax reform, deregulation, trade policy, and immigration. Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court and pursued significant changes to U.S. foreign and domestic policy, including renegotiating trade agreements and withdrawing from several international accords. His term was marked by notable events such as a trade dispute with China, tensions with North Korea, and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump ran for re-election in 2020 but lost to Joe Biden. After the election, he challenged the results, citing allegations of voter fraud, which were dismissed by courts. His tenure and rhetoric remained polarizing, inspiring strong support from his base and criticism from opponents. He was impeached twice during his presidency but was acquitted both times by the Senate.

In 2024, Trump campaigned again for the presidency, emphasizing issues such as the economy, energy policy, and border security. His victory in the election secured his return to the White House. 70.51.245.90 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, are you proposing to replace the lead with this? I think you did very well. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Financial

Here's some material that is in our article at [1]

Financial

In April 2019, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas seeking financial details from Trump's banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, and his accounting firm, Mazars USA. Trump sued the banks, Mazars, and committee chair Elijah Cummings to prevent the disclosures.[506] In May, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena,[507] and judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the banks must also comply.[508][509] Trump's attorneys appealed.[510] In September 2022, the committee and Trump agreed to a settlement about Mazars, and the accounting firm began turning over documents.[511]

It doesn't appear to be worthwhile for our article, is just taking up space and maybe we should delete it. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob K31416 What weighting do RS give it? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In the material there were 6 refs. The first was April 22, 2019, then 4 refs May 21–22 and finally one September 17. It was an episode of congress subpoenas for some of Trump's financial records. As we look at the episode today, there doesn't seem to be much of interest there. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob K31416 Hope you don't mind, I may take a day or a few getting to this, but I'm not ignoring it and think it is worth evaluating in some depth. In the meantime, have a look in secondary sources 2022 and later and see if they discuss/give weight. Some examples of sources: Criminology on Trump and Indicting the 45th president Boss Trump, the GOP, and what we can do about the threat to American democracy. Look for academic reviews of texts like these to contextualize them in academic literature; I find writing a Wikipedia article based on the reviews helpful to share such research with other editors and ensure NPOV. If I haven't responded in a few days, ping me. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)