Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019). Consensus on "racially charged" descriptor later superseded (February 2025).

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. See #44. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. (June 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. Superseded by #71

The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

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

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021) The consensus carries forward to "Official portrait, 2025" in 2025.

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

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

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

50. Superseded by #70

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item. Suggested closure for copy-and-paste:
   {{atop|Please read [[WP:TRUMPRCB]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}}
   [existing thread]
   {{abot}}
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of the MAGA movement in the lead. (RfC January 2025 and nomenclature discussion June 2025)

69. Do not include the word "criminal" in the first sentence. (January 2025)

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

71. Supersedes #44. Omit from the lead a mention of the Trump–Kim meetings of 2018 and 2019. (April 2025)

Internal consistency

This article generally conforms to MoS guidelines. Where MoS guidelines allow differences between articles at editor discretion, this article uses the conventions listed here.

Copy editing

These conventions do not apply to quotations or citation |title= parameters, which are left unchanged from the sources.

1. Use American English, per the {{Use American English}} template.
2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{Use mdy dates}} template.
3. To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example April 12. Since content is often moved around, do this even if the date occurs very early on the line.
4. To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
5. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
6. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".

References

The Citation Style 1 (CS1) templates are used for most references, including all news sources. Most commonly used are {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, and {{cite web}}.

1. |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
2. Generally, |work= and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[New York Times]]. Code |work=[[Los Angeles Times]], not |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]].
   1. There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
   2. When the article title includes a parenthetical, such as in Time (magazine), pipe the link to drop the parenthetical: |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]. Otherwise, there is never a good reason to pipe this link.
3. Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
4. Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article. Place this immediately after the |last= and |first= parameters for that author. |last1=Baker|first1=Peter|author-link1=Peter Baker (journalist)|last2=Freedman|first2=Dylan.
5. In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP Fact Check:", not "AP FACT CHECK:".
6. Per current consensus item 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date=.
7. Omit |language= for English-language sources.
8. Omit |publisher= for news sources.
9. Omit |location= for news sources.
10. Omit |issn= for news sources.
11. Code a space before the pipe character for each parameter. For example, code: |date=April 12, 2025 |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)—not: |date=April 12, 2025|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist). This provides the following benefits for the edit window and diffs:
    1. Improved readability.
    2. Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
12. Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important (the changes, not the editors:). For example:
    1. Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
    2. For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    3. The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.
13. There is currently no convention for the use of named references.

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total. Click [show] to see weeklies.

01 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

08 Oct 2024 — 627 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 112 + 121

15 Oct 2024 — 629 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 135

22 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

29 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

---

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 029 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 046 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 043

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 062 + 076 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 056 + 070 + 138 + 142

---

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 053 + 064 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 054 + 062 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 058 + 057 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 058 + 057 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 087 + 060 + 154 + 164

---

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 058 + 060 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 058 + 060 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 046 + 060 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 047 + 084 + 155 + 135 + 071

---

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 044 + 082 + 162 + 147 + 026

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 044 + 079 + 154 + 141 + 057

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 044 + 081 + 154 + 178 + 045

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 138 + 045

---

04 Mar 2025 — 457 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 053

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 043

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 129 + 043

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 128 + 043

---

01 Apr 2025 — 458 = 040 + 087 + 171 + 114 + 046

08 Apr 2025 — 493 = 040 + 104 + 167 + 128 + 054

15 Apr 2025 — 502 = 040 + 101 + 158 + 128 + 075

22 Apr 2025 — 495 = 040 + 110 + 159 + 128 + 058

29 Apr 2025 — 522 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 082

---

06 May 2025 — 534 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 094

13 May 2025 — 530 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 063 + 090 + 065

20 May 2025 — 529 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 068 + 064 + 088 + 065

27 May 2025 — 528 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 050 + 064 + 087 + 083

---

03 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

10 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

17 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

---

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit. Click [show] to see weeklies.

01 Oct 2024 — 15,811 – 414,704 – n/a

08 Oct 2024 — 15,823 – 414,725 – n/a

15 Oct 2024 — 15,824 – 415,035 – n/a

22 Oct 2024 — 15,873 – 420,021 – n/a

29 Oct 2024 — 15,822 – 421,276 – n/a

---

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

---

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

---

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

---

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

18 Feb 2025 — 11,180 – 339,836 – 247

25 Feb 2025 — 11,213 – 343,445 – 242

---

04 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

---

01 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

08 Apr 2025 — 11,334 – 356,921 – 217

15 Apr 2025 — 11,443 – 363,611 – 175

22 Apr 2025 — 11,397 – 361,630 – 180

29 Apr 2025 — 11,344 – 361,732 – 180

---

06 May 2025 — 11,537 – 365,243 – 171

13 May 2025 — 11,565 – 365,873 – 171

20 May 2025 — 11,574 – 366,310 – 171

27 May 2025 — 11,636 – 369,056 – 164

---

03 Jun 2025 — 11,678 – 369,696 – 164

10 Jun 2025 — 11,758 – 370,645 – 163

17 Jun 2025 — 11,705 – 370,943 – 160

---

Note
Notes

RFC on Lede Organization for Donald Trump

Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15, Space4TCatHerder, and ErnestKrause: Given your participation in the discussion that this Rfc spun off from, you are invited to participate. If you have any thoughts you want to share, please feel free to do so.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:Emiya1980 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Separate paragraphs. For comparison, this was the article before paragraph 3 was split. The new paragraph break marks a distinct change in the nature of the content.
  Arguments about "too many paragraphs" have been effectively shot down. A paragraph break does not make the lead longer, unless we're measuring lead length in millimeters of height. The "four paragraph recommended maximum" has been removed from the MoS guideline and even an associated essay, demoting it to retired relic.
  Shorter paragraphs are easier to read and digest than longer paragraphs, as writing experts will tell you. Paragraph breaks are when a reader pauses for two seconds to process and store what they just read. It's poor writing to give them too much before their next pause, since that means not everything gets stored (i.e., incomplete communication and lower reading comprehension). For the lead, I proposed a rule-of-thumb maximum paragraph size of 140 words; paragraph 3 was 159 words before the split. This rule-of-thumb would be good for the body, too, but that's a separate and independent issue. Readability is most important in the lead.
  Now, I recognize that a lot of web guidance on paragraph length would indicate that 140 words is too small a limit. For the general case, I wouldn't disagree with that. I think paragraphs can be longer in printed books and papers, for example.
  (This also goes to the best reading level for this encyclopedia, and there is a strong case to be made that it should be around 8th grade level. This is not to say we should "dumb it down" so 8th graders and Trump supporters can understand it; rather, that we should make it more readable by using shorter sentences and shorter paragraphs, which are not harder to read for more advanced readers, by avoiding extra-fancy words (as if!), etc. This is about good writing, not content—form, not substance.
  Many middle-aged adults read at about 8th grade level, even if they graduated high school; are they an unimportant segment of our audience? Is a college degree a prerequisite for reading and fully absorbing Wikipedia articles? The web guidance is not written for 8th grade level, but for something more like 12th grade level. It was most likely written by people who read at about 16th grade level. This is a whole different discussion, of course, and too large a question for this RfC.)
  You may find this informative: Talk:Donald Trump#Tracking lead size.
  In this comment, not including this paragraph and the preceding paragraph, the average paragraph length is 66 words, and the longest paragraph is 105 words. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Separate paragraphs i.e., keep separate (keep the status quo, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1292223645). The flow is more natural with the current separation of text into paragraphs than it would be if paragraphs 3 and 4 were joined. Having them separate also better reflects the structure of the article. See WP:CREATELEAD: The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. No comment on "140 words". —Alalch E. 23:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• No strong opinion, but keep content Whether or not paragraphs 3 and 4 are combined, my personal opinion is that all of the content in both is relevant to summarizing the body of the article. I don't think it matters very much whether the paragraphs are separated or combined. There are readability arguments from both perspectives that will depend on personal preference, but for what it's worth, plenty of articles have longer paragraphs than 3-4 combined would be in the case of this article, and there is little controversy about it. I think this may be an example of wikipedians splitting hairs on something that 98% of readers don't care about. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This RfC appears to be part of the recent discussion at WP:Lede about the apparent conflict between lede size on the one hand, and number of paragraphs in the lede on the other hand. Someone there pointed out that lede length should have priority over the question of how many paragraphs there should be in the lede under differing circumstances. Therefor the Lede policy of several years has recently been reversed giving preference to Lede length as the more or less decisive issue. Mandruss and others have been a part of that discussion. The question which was not discussed there was why the context should be interpreted as requiring only short paragraphs of 2-3 sentences in length, rather that fully developed paragraphs which are comprehensive in their length and content. Pinging WhatamIdoing in case he might elaborate on any of this editing at WP:Lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I can live with either version. Slight preference for a single paragraph dealing with the first term, including Trump's attempt to overturn the election and the two impeachments (even though the second one took place shortly after he left office). I just moved the sentence about scholars and historians ranking him into the last paragraph with the general remarks. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• To complicate matters, paras 4 and 5 were boldly combined in this edit. Now, combining paras 3 and 4 would create a 200-word paragraph, not a 159-word paragraph. Unless the bold edit is reverted, my normal-weight "separate paragraphs" !vote now becomes a strong !vote, if that makes any difference. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I restored the pre-split version, i.e., third paragraph on first presidency events including the insurrection (145 words), fourth paragraph on events between terms (criminal and civil cases (66 words). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I prefer bigger paragraphs, but Mandruss makes good points about readability and structure. I am fine either way, and am also not opposed to how it looks currently. BootsED (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  how it looks currently loses a lot of meaning when people keep changing it while it's under discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Jan 6 Pardons in Lead

Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:

• Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.

I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This was the discussion you started at 00:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC). Last comment at 16:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC). You commented on the pardons of the January 6 rioters in a discussion started by another editor at 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC) about "reshaping" the lead paragraph about the second term. Last comment at 17:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC). Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Survey: Jan 6 pardons in lead

• Support: As I have previously stated, the Jan 6 pardons should not be mentioned in the lead. It has received little news coverage following the week of the pardons and therefore reliable sources view it as far less significant than numerous other actions that Trump has taken in 2025. These pardons are less than one sentence in the body, i.e. "he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14." Hence including Jan 6 pardons in the lead is not WP:DUE or WP:SUMMARY compliant. And it would not make sense to to solve this by expanding the section on Jan 6 pardons in the body; again, there is much less reporting on these pardons than a multitude of other executive orders and decisions that are not even mentioned in the body. WP:NOTNEWS requires that Jan 6 pardons be removed from the lead because it has not been deemed noteworthy after initial reports during the week of the pardons, and even during that week it was overshadowed by many of Trump's other decisions that are nowhere in the lead. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: The full text of the "less than one sentence" reads He issued more executive orders on his first day than any other president; he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14. There is also a second mention in the article, as pointed out by BootsED: Counterterrorism researchers described his normalization and revisionist history of the January 6 Capitol attack, and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters, as encouraging future political violence. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, it's a fraction of one sentence and a fraction of another sentence, which still adds to less than one sentence in the body. There is literally nothing else in the lead that has less than one sentence in the body. Keeping the Jan 6 pardons in the lead completely violates basic Wikipedia policy. Bill Williams 20:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. These pardons are less than one sentence in the body is enough argument for me. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Although noteworthy, this will not be the action most remembered about Trump in the future, even compared to other things in the same paragraph. Not to mention the lead is far too long. Station1 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The lead mentions that, [a]fter losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump attempted to overturn the result, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack in 2021 and that he was impeached ... in 2021 for incitement of insurrection. The body says this about the pardons: He issued more executive orders on his first day than any other president; he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14. (Emphasis added by me.) That was obviously of the highest priority for Trump, and it is "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy" per consensus #37. As for the OP's argument that there is much less reporting on these pardons than a multitude of other executive orders and decisions that are not even mentioned in the body — that's the strategy of flooding the zone with so much shit that news media can’t possibly focus on all of it at once, and for us WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Per 3 supports already placed above. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think it's hard to know what is and what isn't a significant event right now in his second term. With Trump, he's like a bull in a china closet, and the media just lurches from one story to the next, doing their best to keep up. So I support removal for now, with an eye on revisiting the lead once his term is over, and academic sources can have a chance to evaluate his second term, and then we can take our cue from them. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Isaidnoway. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• On the fence The point Mandruss makes is well received - the lede should reflect the body. However this is pretty important compared to the various other flash-in-the-pan scandals Trump has kicked off because it has some real lasting consequences to the structure of democracy within the USA. I don't know. I think I very weakly opposesupport this and suggest expanding the body text on the topic a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223: It is not Wikipedia editors' job to determine what has "real lasting consequences to the structure of democracy within the USA." That is the job of the sources we cite. Reliable sources do not place significant importance on Trump's Jan 6 pardons relative to everything else in the lead and everything else in the body that is more than one sentence (meanwhile Jan 6 pardons are less than one sentence). As I stated in a reply to another editor, Trump's cancellation of federal grants and scientific research, chainsaw approach under DOGE (the lead mentions job cuts but not spending cuts), deployment of the national guard and marines to quell protests, crackdown on DEI and affirmative action, attacks on institutes of higher education, extensive deregulation (especially on energy and pollution), takeover and dismantling of independent agencies, AI and crypto policies, and plenty of other actions are NOT individually mentioned in the lead but have seen FAR more media coverage than the Jan 6 pardons. And reliable sources have described Trump's other actions as more consequential, positively or negatively, than the Jan 6 pardons. Bill Williams 20:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You did see that I opposed on the grounds it wasn't sufficiently represented in the body, right? Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223: Apologies for the confusion, as Mandruss pointed out below, I should have made the Survey "yes" or "no" to my proposal. Because it's "support" and "oppose" there is some confusion. "Support" means supporting removal, "oppose" means opposing inclusion. I'd suggest changing your vote to "very weakly support" or "very weakly remove" to clarify. Sorry about that. Bill Williams 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. The pardons, one of the largest grants of clemency in presidential history by a presidential victor to his supporters who violently attacked the United States Capitol for the first time since the War of 1812 in an attempt to overturn a presidential election is extremely noteworthy, and thus passes WP:DUE.

Furthermore, policy on verifiability states that "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article", and thus "even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability." Likewise, MOS:LEADREL further states that "not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text". BootsED (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I personally believe the January 6 attack was abhorrent and therefore we don't need to discuss how violence is bad, so can you show how reliable sources deem this "extremely noteworthy"? Trump's DEI and affirmative action crackdown, higher education battles, extensive deregulation (especially on energy), takeover and dismantling of independent agencies, AI and crypto policies, and plenty of other actions are not individually mentioned in the lead but have seen far more media coverage than the Jan 6 pardons. And reliable sources have described Trump's other actions as more consequential, positively or negatively, than the Jan 6 pardons. As for MOS:LEADREL, you're making an argument to support this RfC, since it says: "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The Jan 6 pardons are not just "basic facts" about Trump and are not covered (except for a fraction of one sentence) in the remainder of the article. Bill Williams 21:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Law enforcement groups and others saying that the pardons undermine the rule of law: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The pardons are mentioned twice, not once, in the article. The first time in Early actions, 2025–present, and the second time in Link to violence and hate crimes. These are pretty big mentions, not just "a fraction of one sentence" as you say. Several of the actions you describe are already mentioned in the lead with the link to the relevant page in the words "intimidation of political opponents and civil society". BootsED (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, it is a fraction of two sentences. One that I already mentioned is "he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14." The other that you referenced is "and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters." My point still stands, this is minimal in the body and doesn't belong in the lead. The other actions that I mentioned may be in the article you hyperliked, but they aren't in the lead of this article, and neither should the Jan 6 pardons. Bill Williams 15:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - RS don't seem to make that much of it at this point.Riposte97 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support- The pardons do not belong in the lead, I have to agree with the sentiment that there is not enough coverage, hence the few sentences mention in the body of this article. It would seem out of place to read about the pardons in the lead, there are many other things that would take precedent to include into he lead before inclusion of the pardons.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This belongs in the lead in the context of Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 elections being one of the most historic features of his first presidency, not to mention the basis of the legal affairs (also mentioned in the lead) that he spent much of his inter-presidency involved in. It is notable that he granted one of the largest blanket pardons in U.S. history as one of his first acts in office, as presidential pardons normally happen on a smaller scale, and toward the end of a presidency as well. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your and others' premise is that the proper focus of this article is on his presidencies. We have other articles for that, and this article already places too much emphasis on that. Readers must learn to "drill deeper" in their areas of interest, if they don't know that already. That's why we give them all those hatnote links. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal. As I mentioned in this discussion, Jan 6 pardons were not considered notable by RSs even by the 100 day mark. They may be relevant to Trump's presidencies but are hardly one of the most notable concepts about Trump himself. I believe its inclusion was the result of WP:RECENTISM as the result of writing the blurb early in the second presidency. satkara❈talk 03:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not one of WP's guidelines or policies, and it clashes with the argument that there hasn't been enough recent coverage. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand how it clashes; there *was* a spike in coverage at the beginning of the term, when it was probably added, but it has failed long lasting notability which is why there is no recent coverage. satkara❈talk 16:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This is addressed in the body of the text. Is it significant enough to be included in the lead? Arguably yes, if going by vibes only or something, but there isn’t sufficient coverage to justify its inclusion in the lead at this point. Nemov (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  vibes only or something? What are you referring to? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Reflection of the body and recentism are good arguments, but the pardons are significant. However this is decided, the precedent should not be long lasting. It's very possible future trump actions will push this to relative obscurity. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  @R. G. Checkers: Would they push this to relative obscurity because they're more important, or because they're more recent? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm saying continued coverage of other future events could push this out of the lead. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose removal, for the following reasons:

1. The pardons are more noteworthy than other items contained in the lead. For example, the "racketeering case" is not as noteworthy as the pardons.
2. The pardons continue to be relevant, and are not just "old news" as some proponents of this issue have suggested. He is still on a pardoning spree; this list is up to May 30.

BeNiceToMeDammit (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's still getting WP:SUSTAINED coverage (just glance at Google News; see eg. ) as well as significant academic coverage that either focuses heavily on it or which plainly treats it as a major turning point in Trump's biography which suggests that it has sufficient long-term significance for the lead. The fact that many news sources are relating it to eg. Trump's reaction to the LA unrest, and many academic sources are focusing on it as a moment of central significance for both the law and Trump's presidency, suggests that it has become a key part of his bio and which therefore deserves a sentence in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per R. G. Checkers . -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Editorial judgment is required here, news sources cannot filter out WP:NTRUMP but we can. That J6 is a significant moment in modern American history is noted by most scholars, consequently that virtually every law enforcement action of, what has been veritably described as an attempted coup, was nullified is indeed significant for the person who made the pardon in the first place and on who's behalf (or behest) this was was being attempted makes it even more so. Gotitbro (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal as whitewashing. Laying off a bunch of people, which sucks but is normal and not illegal, is not somehow more notable than pardoning a bunch of supporters who tried to take over the government for you. It’s exemplar of his anti-democratic cronyism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Remove. For such an overencumbered article, we need to be more selective about what we're including up there. Those voting to include the content do make good points and I'd probably be on their side if it were any other article; but, let's face it, this is Trump and so there will be an endless list of things that could arguably go into the lead. J6 itself I think is notable enough to, the pardonings are less notable. — Czello ^(music) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The short version of the RfC question: Should this be removed? This is a Yes or No question, but for some reason we used Support and Oppose instead. This is vulnerable to confusion: Are you "supporting" or "opposing" the content, or its removal? Cases in point: I believe (at least) SusanLesch and Czello meant Support, not Oppose, and should correct their !votes for clarity.
  Support and Oppose should be used for proposals, not yes/no questions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me; yes, I meant removal. I've corrected myself now. — Czello ^(music) 12:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

References

References

donaldjtrump.com

Donald Trump has an official website called donaldjtrump.com, should we add it in the "External links" section? DarkaLjiljpan (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

no. WP:ELMINOFFICAL. he is not primarily known for running for President anymore, and as that website is primarily for fundraising, it does not add much value. he also has an official site as President at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/. Stronger argument to be made for that to be linked. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk role in 2024 election

Elon Musk claims that Trump wouldn't have won the 2024 election without him, while Trump says that he didn't need Musk's assistance "at all". Would it be appropriate to include one or both of these viewpoints when describing the Trump-Musk conflict? Spokuljarba9422 (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Not on Trump's biography, no. Maybe on the article about the dispute itself EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't add to this bio page. Best put in Trump's 2024 campaign page. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Meta discussion about solutions to benefit editors, local and visiting

Agreed. Meta: What we need is an easy way to link to "Want to add new information about Donald Trump?" in the banners at the top of this page. It would save a lot of endless repetition, ad nauseam, in the same manner as WP:TRUMPRCB (which has more than proved its worth). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump and related article directory? Maybe make it into something like his series template but with some more explanation (or you could also just link the template like I did here). ✶Quxyz✶ 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I’m surprised this doesn't exist already, actually. It'll hopefully allow a more bird's-eye view. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Opposed to redundantly linking the template anywhere on this page. Perhaps on a new separate subpage like TRUMPRCB, where there would also be room for some more explanation. No need for a new template, we would just use normal prose like in TRUMPRCB. We could have a shortcut to that page, and that shortcut could be linked in replies on this page. It could also be linked at other Trump ATPs. Unlike TRUMPRCB, we wouldn't close the discussion: the criteria for closure would be very hard to define. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

For that page, I would implement a flowchart like style. For example, you could have a heading like "Information/commentary about Trump's elections" which would list the relavent articles listed in the Presidential Campaigns section of his series template, possibly with short descriptions so that people can find their way around. One issue I have with the current series template in general is that a lot of the lines mesh together and some of the titles for articles listed are vague. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Flowcharts. I see you have a digital brain, like me. I'll think on it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought on it. I think what you're suggesting would be over-engineering for a guy who will be yesterday's news in about four years. Large investments need large returns. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have a grander vision of this being used at other, non-Trump articles going forward, okay; there's nothing wrong with thinking big. We initially developed the current consensus list for this article alone. After it proved itself, it spread organically to a number of other articles. It may be still spreading gradually; I haven't been tracking that, but it wouldn't surprise me. But we had to justify it here first—there was no guarantee it would spread at all, even if it survived here—and I don't think we can justify your idea here. If you wanted to kill your idea at community level, you could raise it at WP:VPI. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If you start making it and want me to help, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page. I don't usually hang around political areas and I don't have this page watchlisted so I may not see it. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: I have boldly created WP:TRUMPOTA. It obviously needs expansion/elaboration to justify its existence, and that's of course open to the usual BRD collaboration. I realize it's redundant with the banner, but unlike the banner it can be expanded in any way helpful to visiting editors (including the judicious use of bulleted or numbered lists, footnotes, or sectioning). I'm thinking the banner could eventually be eliminated or dramatically reduced, having been functionally replaced by TRUMPOTA. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added some articles related to the elections with short descriptions (not the automatic ones) as to what they are. I have his four campaigns with articles listed. Under 2016, I also put down the Never Trump movement as an example of a subarticle to a subarticle. ✶Quxyz✶ 12:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Good start. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Should be in mainspace as an wp:outline. If you don't believe me, see Category:Outlines of people —Alalch E. 02:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It's more than an outline; it's also a "standard response" page for this article alone. Similar to TRUMPRCB, its raisons d'être are to (1) save local editors the time currently spent giving the same replies over and over, and (2) give the visiting editors some explanation, guidance, and assistance in a standard, well-considered, carefully crafted way. I strongly oppose stripping it of that important function just because it contains an outline. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Or, to be fair, we could move the outline part into mainspace and then link to it from TRUMPOTA. I'll wait for comments about that, including from its instigator originator. I'm too lazy to look into the requirements for content and formatting for a mainspace outline, though I suspect you linked them above. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Not only can we link to it from TRUMPOTA, we can transclude relevant sections. —Alalch E. 09:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

One thing I dont like about moving it to mainspace is that I have to be more formal with it. In the talkspace, I dont necessarily need to worry about it being complete, or following verification and neutral position policies stringently. Im more worried about having to deal with NPOV because of the ridiculous bounds and arbitrations and disputes related to Trump. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, if something is disputed, a reference can be provided. Outlines can have references. Outline of lichens has many and is FL-class. It doesn't have to be complete from the get go either. —Alalch E. 13:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: I hope you're not walking away from this. I lack extensive knowledge of Trump subarticles beyond the two presidency articles. You're at least a co-conspirator in this, and I hope you'll help see it through to final resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ill continue to chip away at it but there are a lot of articles I have to look through and I have plans with friends this week along with normal work and shenanigans. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Actually I was referring mainly to the mainspace outline part. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I will do the talkspace portion of it. If someone moves and refactors it to the mainspace, though, I wouldnt be opposed. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Alalch E. thinks it's important. Maybe they think it's important enough to do it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that Quxyz would not be opposed to a move to mainspace. I will keep that in mind and see if I can come up some additions. —Alalch E. 04:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz and Alalch E.: I was about to very boldly create Outline of Donald Trump. I read some of WP:OUTLINE, but it's a small novel and I had a TLDR episode. So there is probably a lot of room for improvement.

Then I discovered Draft:Outline of Donald Trump, created January 2021. Why did I think this would be straightforward? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"Donald Fump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald Fump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 12 § Donald Fump until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Freezing this page in amber?

Can we get consensus to reinstitute this content, at least as a starting point? Riposte97 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Far too much detail for this article. Not summary level. Not a good starting point. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weren't you trying to make that section shorter? That edit massively expands it. And I don't see how the expansion really makes sense, since most of what it adds is tangential to Trump's rhetoric and political practice. The longstanding version summarizes the key points from that perspective; we don't need to go into a blow-by-blow of what everyone said about these events, especially aspects that don't really touch on Trump's rhetoric and political practice. (In fact, while the edit massively expands it, it somehow manages to remove the key point that actually does relate to Trump's rhetoric - After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020.[688] In response, he said social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and he would "strongly regulate, or close them down".[689] After the January 6 attack, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other platforms.[690] The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events[691][692] and correlated with a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation on Twitter. Those relatively brief sentences are absolutely central to the section, since they touch on how his use of social media was controversial, core context behind it and his banning, how his political practice in relation to social media changed over time, and so on. It's silly to massively expand the section and yet leave out core aspects like that. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The "Social media" section was the one section in "Political practice and rhetoric" that the RfCs didn't propose to massively cut, and that cut is apparently only on hold temporarily. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• The bold edit replaced the longstanding content with material copied from two sections and the lead of Social media use by Donald Trump, verbatim and with all sources, and including the "archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead" in violation of consensus 25. As I said in my editsum, the bold edit is not summary-level. It adds minutiae, quotes excessively, and uses unencyclopedic language ("numerous passionate posts"?). The TMTG "origin story" doesn't belong in "Political practice and rhetoric". It is already adequately covered in Between presidencies with his other business interests.

Material copied from these sections:

From Social media use by Donald Trump#Banned from both platforms Once a prolific user, Donald Trump was blocked from posting new content to Facebook and Instagram from January 6, 2021, to February 7, 2023. On January 6, 2021, amidst an attack at the Capitol while Congress was counting the electoral votes, Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms. Facebook's vice president of integrity, Guy Rosen, explained that the video "contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence." (YouTube also removed the same video. Twitter at first disabled comments; later, the Tweet was deleted.) The next day, Facebook said the block would remain at least until the end of Trump's term on January 20. On May 5, 2021, after considering whether to reinstate Trump's account, Facebook's Oversight Board upheld Trump's suspensions on Facebook and Instagram but instructed Facebook, Inc. to reassess the indefinite ban within six months; one month later, Facebook decided to extend Trump's ban to two years and reconsider his case no earlier than January 7, 2023. From Social media use by Donald Trump#Truth Social On October 20, 2021, it was announced that Trump would be launching a new social media website called Truth Social. It is run by Trump Media & Technology Group, a company incorporated in February 2021 and which on October 20, 2021, made a deal to merge with a special purpose acquisition company, Digital World Acquisition, that will fund it. The Republican National Committee sent an email the next day asking supporters to join Truth Social. Truth Social debuted in Apple's App Store in February 2022, and had reportedly drawn 1.2 million installations by the end of March. According to reports, Trump has a licensing agreement with TMTG requiring him to use Truth Social as his primary social media platform, and to wait at least six hours before reposting material to any other social media platform, with some exceptions for political activities. From Social media use by Donald Trump#Banned from both platforms, Social media use by Donald Trump#Truth Social, and one sentence from that article's lead Elon Musk, after acquiring Twitter, reinstated his Twitter account in November 2022. On February 7, 2023, Meta reinstated Trump on Facebook and Instagram, having announced two weeks earlier that the risk to public safety had "sufficiently receded." Meta said there would be “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses" and that Trump could be banned for up to two years at a time in the future if he reoffends. On March 17, 2023, Trump made his first Facebook post since his reinstatement: a video clip of his victory speech following the 2016 presidential election in which he stated, "Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business. Complicated." In 2023, in relation to his federal prosecution for allegedly inciting the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Trump made a post to Truth Social stating "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!", which was interpreted by prosecutors as a threat towards "witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him". As a result, the Department of Justice requested a protective order against Donald Trump to prevent him from making public statements regarding the case. The order was issued on August 11, 2023. As Trump encountered further legal problems including the prospect of more civil and criminal trials, he made numerous passionate posts to Truth Social regarding these matters and those involved in them. Commentators described some of them as 'rants' and 'unhinged'. In April 2024, Trump was held in contempt of court in a New York court in relation to Truth Social posts about his business records falsification trial (the so-called "hush money trial") that violated a gag order made by the court. To comply with orders from the court, Trump deleted the postings from Truth Social. In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle the 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. References

Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, Space, can we draft you in to help edit the content down to summary level? Riposte97 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Riposte97 is correct to point out that "freezing the Trump page in amber" is not a good idea. Bringing in the data from sibling articles by CWW into order to bring the Social Media subsection up to date and include 2023, 2024, and 2025 would appear to make sense to anyone with an eye to wanting to keep this section article current. Since the new edit was adapted by CWW, then the statement from Space4T appears to be inadequate and inaccurate when he states: "Nope, for so many reasons, from Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #37 to trivia, excessive quoting of everybody, and nonencyclopedic language." It cannot be adapted by CWW and nonencyclopedia language at the same time; at least pick the one or the other if you wish to freeze this Trump section of the article in amber. The edit also also has nothing to do with Consensus #37 which editors appear to be using a catch-all ascription for unwanted edits; summary style discussed the writing style which editors should employ when writing something like the lede for the article. That is unrelated to bringing the subsection about Social Media use up to date and to include 2023, 2024, and 2025, which are currently being excluded from the article by other editors. Supporting comments from Riposte97 above to bring the edit back into the article. That section can also be significantly shortened by taking out the back-up archive urls currently used in the citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see anybody suggesting anything should be frozen in amber or anything else. I don't like it when people use hyperbole to misrepresent a position they don't like. Not a good look, and a bit too Trumplike for my taste. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Riposte97 and his comment on freezing the article in amber; why else would there be many reverts of material from 2022, 2023, and 2024 which is completely relevant to the article? Your position on Summary style seems to not match the Wikipedia article for how Summary style is used; that article speaks of how to summarize material to write a good lede section and that's not what the current edit nearly at the bottom of the Trump article is doing. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• But this is the "political practice and rhetoric" section. Most of what you copy-pasted in has nothing to do with his political practice or rhetoric; and you removed a lot of stuff that does related to that, with no explanation. If you want to expand it with newer stuff related to that topic, go ahead and propose new sentences, but replacing the entire section wholesale with an explanation that it's an "update" doesn't make sense. We don't freeze articles in amber, but per WP:PRESERVE, we normally build on what's already there; that's especially true for controversial ones like this one where people are likely to have sharply divergent views on what represents a neutral treatment and where small details of how things are worded can be extremely significant - the existing wording took a long time to get to a state where it represents a stable consensus. If you want to expand, expand; if you feel there's things that have to be removed or replaced, explain why you want them removed (but recognize that "updating" is rarely going to be a good reason to remove things - per WP:RECENTISM, we want an article that covers the full timeline and not just recent events.) A drastic rewrite of an entire massive section all at once or an edit that removes or replaces things without explaining why is almost always going to be a hard sell for an article as controversial as this one; in this case you replaced the entire section and, in doing so, removed key points with no real explanation. Start with smaller edits, explaining and getting consensus for each one as you go; for uncontroversial additions, it shouldn't be hard to get consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• ErnestKrause, you have repeatedly stated that you want the rhetoric section to be more "updated" and have insinuated in comments on this topic that you believe updating means removing information roughly three or more years old. This is a biography, which should cover his whole life. We shouldn't be removing content that is well-sourced and relevant because it is no longer "recent".

Thus, the WP:RECENTISM that others have noted is actually intentional. Per comments in a prior RfC, Ernest stated that "its the second term and the critique of Donald Trump has moved forward to 2025 with different points of reference, emphasis, and critiques of his rhetoric and politics", stating that "Ninety percent of the prose there is from 2017 and 2018, and not from 2025". For instance, Ernest stated that because Trump's prior misogynistic comments about women were no longer recent, they should no longer be mentioned on the page because they were no longer a "current critique". Instead, a "pro-feminism" edit to the page should be added because there was a more recent source where "Trump endorsed the pro-feminism position of his wife in his March presidential address".

Above in "Talk:Donald Trump#Consensus 37 revisited", Ernest states that "Its fairly clear that the meaning of 'summary style' seems to want to encompass biography facts as summarized to less than one year in duration, though #37 does not clarify this. The period of time intended for acceptable summaries should be specified". Summary style does not mean you only cover the last year. BootsED (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

How are you defining Summary style; nearly every one on this Talk page seems to have their own take about how it should be used and defined. The Wikipedia page on Summary style speaks about how its used to write a good lede, but its not used that way on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit, I strenuously object to several aspects of it. First, it inserted the Stephanopoulos case, which is far too specific for a broad summary; the AT&T's purchase of Time Warner thing is similarly inappropriately nitty-gritty blow-by-blow stuff. It also removed much of the timeline - this article is for Trump's entire biography, so stuff like Trump sought media attention throughout his career, maintaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. As a candidate and as president, he frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the "fake news media" and "the enemy of the people". is vital for a summary; those summarize the key aspects of the section's topic, which have received the most coverage in the long term. The free media coverage was also central to his early political career (and, especially, to his political practice and received massive WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so it needs a mention. Things like by 2024, Trump repeatedly voiced support for outlawing political dissent and criticism and said that reporters should be prosecuted for not divulging confidential sources and media companies should possibly lose their broadcast licenses for unfavorable coverage of him are also vital aspects of his political practice and received WP:SUSTAINED massive coverage in terms of being significant aspects of his rhetoric, so they need to be part of any summary. The older version also did a better job of summarizing things like the blacklists, Trump's accusations of bias, and his efforts in that regard in his second term without diving into the unnecessarily detailed blow-by-blow in the rewrite, which was generally too WP:RECENTISM-focused on individual events. Slow down and focus on one change at a time as oppose to replacing the whole section with a rewrite - "updating" isn't really a reasonable rationale to replace so much text. If there's things to add, add them, and discuss them if they're reverted (the Stephanopoulos case was objected to repeatedly in previous discussions, stop re-adding it! It has nothing to do with political practice or rhetoric!) The rewrite was a mess of trivia that sharply lowered the section's quality and removed properly-summarized key aspects in favor of blow-by-blow trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Covering and adding 2022, 2023, and 2024 RS material is not recentism; I'm agreeing with Riposte97 that the material should be added as useful and informative. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There's already plenty of stuff from those years; my objection is that you went into too much detail on recent stuff. But also, as I said, you removed a lot of core summery stuff with no real explanation. Things like the stuff I quoted above - eg. love / hate relationship with the press, accusing it of bias, "fake news", calling it the enemy of the people, etc. or voicing support for outlawing dissent? Those are more central to the topic of Trump's political practice and rhetoric than blow-by-blow details of individual lawsuits or similar events. The goal for this section is to summarize his entire political practice and rhetorical style with an emphasis on the parts that have received WP:SUSTAINED coverage, not to present a point-by-point history. You removed a lot of stuff that was central in that regard, and replaced it with stuff that isn't. If you think there's absolutely central stuff that needs to be covered, go more slowly and add it bit by bit; and avoid combining additions and removals in big sweeping edits like that. If there's things you object to, focus on one sentence at a time. Dramatic replacements of entire paragraphs of text aren't usually the way to go with mature controversial articles like this - for the most part each paragraph is the result of extended discussion and consensus-building; and there's usually a reason for how they're worded or what's included, so when you replace an entire section you're going to hit an entire laundry-list of objections at once. Those can be answered and wrangled through, but it's hard enough to do it for one sentence at a time. --Aquillion (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Lawsuit results for Trump should not be removed from the article

For the last two subsections of the Political practice section, there were lawsuits filed for each of these last two subsections, and the results for the lawsuits have now been reported by RS in the press. However, several editors including Aquillion and BootsED, have opposed the inclusion of the outcome of these two separate lawsuits by reverting my edits to include RS for these outcomes. That appears highly inconsistent: If there has been a lawsuit on subject matter covered in this article, then the outcome of the related lawsuits should be included in the article. Since I'm the editor who added the fact that there are over 200 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration to the lede (now over 300 lawsuits), then the issue of exclusion of lawsuit results in other sections in the article seems highly inconsistent. The addition of the lawsuit outcomes which I've previously added to those last two subsections in the Political practice section should be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

PLEASE, cite the revision urls of your bold edit(s) and the removals challenging them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Its just the 2 lawsuits in those last two subsections: The 'Social media' Meta lawsuit result was reverted here: [7], and the 'Relation to Press' lawsuit was reverted here: [8]. I'm stating that these two lawsuit results should not be removed from the Trump article and should be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Is it your intent to add every single one of those 300 lawsuits? A broad summary indicating that Trump has been involved in many lawsuits of types X, Y, and Z makes sense; in the political practice section specifically, a brief summary along the lines of "Trump has used lawsuits as a political tool to do XYZ" makes sense. And a broad summary of the results of those lawsuits makes sense if and when there's coverage backing such a summary and indicating their overarching significance. But I don't think a blow-by-blow for individual lawsuits makes sense - if we're going to highlight individual lawsuits for someone who has been involved in as many as Trump has, we would need sourcing that clearly indicates why the highlighted lawsuits are significant parts of his biography. And for the political practice and rhetoric section specifically, if we're going to highlight individual lawsuits we need to have coverage connecting them to that topic. The way you covered the Stephanopoulos case also doesn't really reflect the coverage; if we were going to mention it at all, the part that received the most coverage is why they settled (ie. the source you linked is an interview with a legal scholar who clearly indicates that ABC would have won on the merits but settled because they believed doing so was necessary to get regulatory approval from the Trump administration.) If we were going to discuss it at all, obviously that would be the focus; it would be misusing the source to omit that aspect. But, again, that sort of thing is better covered in child articles; the important thing for the level of granularity in this article is the 1000-foot-view of "Trump has used lawsuits and the mechanisms of executive power as a tool to pressure the press", with the blow-by-blow examples like that regulated to child articles. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Its the two lawsuits in the two subsections at the bottom of the 'Political practice' section; they are both linked in my response to Space4T directly above your comment here. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump's annual physical

I failed to notice the bold edit on April 14 that added this info to the "Health" section:

In 2025, the White House released the results of a health examination. The report said Trump had "well controlled" high cholesterol, while "exhibit[ing] excellent cognitive and physical health" and being "fully fit to execute the duties" of the presidency. It was written by Sean Barbabella, the physician to the president.

References

This edit removed it, and it's removal was challenged in this edit.

IMO, this falls under WP:BALASP as well as WP:NOTNEWS, i.e., a description of isolated events, … , or news reports related to one subject [that] may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. WP:PUFFERY: RS report the WH physician's summary (excellent health, active lifestyle, frequent victories in golf events, etc.) in scare quotes. Also mentioned in RS, e.g. the NYT: The report also notes that Mr. Trump has been treated for high cholesterol, skin damages from frequent sun exposure, seasonal allergies and diverticulosis, a condition in which small pouches, called diverticula, form in the wall of the colon. He has also had cataract surgery for both of his eyes and has had a benign colon polyp, according to the report. That's not "excellent health", it's a 78-year-old man with excellent healthcare (someone please shoot me at 77 coz I can't afford that). The Times doesn't even mention the "well-managed hypercholesterolemia, well-managed rosacea, and actinic keratosis" that's also in the WH report.

Barbabella isn't notable, but, as with all-things-Trump, an article was promptly created as soon as his appointment was announced on April 13 - waiting for a report on Trump's hairdresser.

I support removal of the paragraph. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per my edit summary. With sufficient rationalization and creative application of vague and ambiguous PAGs, we can justify inclusion or omission of just about anything. (For example, you're citing a guideline about avoiding certain words in included content and appropriating it to govern what content to include in the first place. In this case, "creative application" just means misuse.) I prefer the nice, simple, objective RS weight test. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Questions; Do we have conflicting RS? Is there some question or conflict regarding the reliability of Barbabella as the Primary?

DN (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at quite a few, and they're all reporting along the lines of the NY Times article: The report, written by the president’s physician, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella ... says that Mr. Trump "remains in excellent health" and "exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health." It refers to Mr. Trump’s "frequent victories in golf events" as an example of his "active lifestyle" contributing to his physical and mental well-being. (The archived version shows a gigantic part of the Barbabella's report in the middle of the article, instead of the link to the report.) The outlier is the Intelligencer article which sums up Barbabella's report thusly: So ultimately, this latest physical was totally normal for Trump, which is to say kind of weird for anyone else. Nothing to see here! We don't usually include Trump's hyperbole, so why include hyperbole by proxy? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Seems pretty WP:ROTM to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Support removal. The report is not notable enough on its own. BootsED (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, seems perfectly notable and pertinent to a "Health" subsection.

satkara❈talk 16:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Trivial nonsense. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of non-argument that should be avoided in Wikipedia editing, barely one step removed from "I just don't like it." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, its policy based WP:undue, what does this tell us about Trump we need to know? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm too stoopid to know that "Trivial nonsense" means "WP:undue". Apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you also aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal. Seems undue. No sustained coverage, the and coverage that does exist doesn't seem to give it much significance. It's pretty routine for presidents to release physicals; they usually get brief coverage but not much else. Why are we focusing on this one in particular? I'm baffled by the argument that this could conceivably pass the RS WP:WEIGHT test - due weight is relative; it doesn't just mean "every single thing that has coverage goes in the article." For someone who has as much focus as Trump, something that goes in the article needs either sustained coverage, or coverage that clearly emphasizes its significance (ie. coverage describing it in a way that makes it clear it is an important part of his biography.) Neither is the case here; it's a blip in the news. Compare to eg. the Bornstein letter, which has substantial long-term coverage indicating its significance (it was still in the news three years later!) If this turns out to have similarly long-term significance we can add it then, but none of the current coverage suggests that it does. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Remove last paragraph

There are no sources in the last paragraph in the lead section. Remove it besides the first sentence because of Mos:label. Jdn2004 (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. You can find the sources for the content summarized in the last paragraph in the sections Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric, Donald Trump#Early actions, 2025–present, and Donald Trump#Scholarly rankings. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Immigrant background origins in his family

In another language of Donald Trump's page read that his paternal grandfather was a german born immigrant to US. In enwiki the ref: Frederick Trump: "Born and raised in Kallstadt, Germany, in what was then the Kingdom of Bavaria, Trump immigrated to the United States in 1885."

For some unknown reason for me this whole story is missing from Donald Trump's enwiki page. I mean I can accept and understand that it is somewhat not a good story for Donald Trump, but you should write and not color the history. Period. 82.131.144.218 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The reason is simple. It's not a significant enough fact for his bio to be included in this long article. Trump's grandfather was just another unknown immigrant until Trump ran for president, i.e, not notable in and of himself. The "Early life and education" section says that Trump is of German and Scottish descent, and the infobox has the link to Trump family which has a section on his grandparents. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, is there an American alive today who is not descended from immigrants? Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

On a long enough time scale and a specific enough spatial scale, every human alive today is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants wherever they live. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Also irrelevant, the point is "what sets Trump apart," not "how is he the same as everyone else". So what would this addition tell us about trump? Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I was actually agreeing with you and expanding your point, not trying to support the original poster. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That information would fit in perfectly on the Frederick Trump page but would be overdetail for the general Donald Trump page. MilaKuliž (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Former Guy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Former Guy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17 § The Former Guy until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2025

It is debatable that Donald Trump is the true 47th president of the United States. Due to several confessions and proofs of vote tampering it is fair to say he is not the true current president but an imposter criminal felon of the highest order who has invaded the Oval Office and is running an Illegal and unconstitutional/ unlawful administration. This deserves attention towards condemnation not shielding him using deceptive wording. I strongly suggest editing or removing that bit of false information as lies spread among many do not make them truths. 2601:182:C00:A3E0:FCB2:54B3:6944:1156 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, please see WP:VOICE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RGW. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Should tariffs be discussed in domestic policy, foreign policy, or both?

Background for others: I added a sentence ("Trump pursued a protectionist economic policy involving sweeping tariffs on nearly all U.S. imports") here that was reverted as a generalization. I was surprised, but after re-reading the article saw a similar statement under "foreign policy": "Trump's economic policies have been described as protectionist, with Trump imposing tariffs on most countries, including large tariffs on major trading partners China, Canada, and Mexico."

I then deleted the remaining tariff content under "domestic policy", as it was semi-misleading (Trump's non-liberation day tariffs (steel, aluminum, cars, more) are also global, so "a global tariff announcement" is more accurate than "his global tariff announcement"), and because the content was repetitive with "foreign policy".

So questions for debate:

1. Is it a generalization to describe Trump's economic policy as protectionist? Multiple RSs support this: WSJ, Financial Times, Atlantic Council, El Pais

2. Should tariffs be mentioned under domestic policy, foreign policy, or both? Currently, tariffs have yet to have notable domestic impact (MSNBC, Economist) but are expected to have some in the future, dependent on what the ultimate tariff levels are.

3. Should the 2025 stock market crash be mentioned? I don't have a strong opinion (other than thinking it should be moved to foreign), but considering it was fairly brief there's an argument it doesn't belong in this article at all. satkara❈talk 18:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't think it's a generalization in this context.
2. Tariffs fall under foreign policy, even if they have domestic impact they are still considered foreign policy.
3. The crash could certainly be mentioned as a result of the tariffs being enforced.

Hope this is helpful! ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• That's all very general and I'm not sure that this is not a forum topic rather than a Trump edit question. The Trump edit which you mention on 'Liberation Day' was reverted by Space4T on the basis of being overly general. At present its not clear how much traction 'Liberation Day' has had; therefor it seems Sapce4T has reverted. Wikipedia's Tariff article states that a tariff is a domestically applied levy or taxation upon foreign goods entering the country; that emphasizes the Domestic aspects of such potential edits. The Foreign policy aspect of such edits usually imply that the foreign importer may also may their own tariffs applied against the nation to which they are sending goods; that invites negotiation with foreign countries to decide on the best compromise of mutually levied tariffs which makes it foreign policy. In the absence of presenting specific examples for each of your outlined topics, then it seems that this discussion is overly theoretical for general discussion on the Trump Talk page. Individual tariff edits should be discussed on the basis of the RS being used to assess if they are domestic or foreign in their orientation to the Trump article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @ErnestKrause. I don't have a specific wording in mind, but thought it would be best to build consensus on whether it would be better discussed under foreign or domestic policy and then adjust the wording accordingly. For example under domestic it would probably be related to fears of inflation, but under foreign it would be related to strain on foreign relationships.

  Currently, we have very similar wording under foreign: "Trump's economic policies have been described as protectionist, with Trump imposing tariffs on most countries, including large tariffs on major trading partners China, Canada, and Mexico." - so if this is too general, we could tighten the wording (although personally I think it's fine).

  If it's helpful, I think the content should be moved under "foreign" and read something like "Trump pursued a protectionist economic policy and, on April 2, 2025, announced broad tariffs including a 10% minimum on nearly all imports to the United States. The announcement triggered a market crash and retaliation from major trading partners." satkara❈talk 23:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• IMO all of those sections should be excerpts from the sub articles. Any issues over what should be in the lead/"excerpted section" of those articles should be discussed and dealt with at those articles. If something is so important about it that it should be covered here, then it should also be in the lead (which is usually the excerpted paragraph/s) at the target article. If it's not important enough to be in the lead at the sub-article, then it's not important enough to be covered here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  I like the idea, but the leads would probably end up too detailed for an article about Trump as a person vs his presidency. satkara❈talk 23:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  This article is about Trump the person, not just his presidenc(ies). If all you're trying to do is make this article about his presidencies and/or portions of them, then you're violating NPOV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I meant: this article is about Trump the person, so the level of detail in the leads of the various sub-articles would likely be too much. satkara❈talk 01:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2025

D1-trumpHaTeR (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Shawtybaeucueunco

Don't forget to add he's a dumb manipulator that literally is a  felon "running" the U.S. Oh also he's literally about to bomb some places. NO joke the reason of WWlll.

   - Your fav person. Ik you'll probably find me, but I don't care. D1-trumpHaTeR (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)