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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by unlisted consensus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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)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 Superseded by #17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 Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 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

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

---

01 Jul 2025 — 545 = 040 + 108 + 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

24 Jun 2025 — 11,650 – 369,162 – 162

---

01 Jul 2025 — 11,622 – 368,483 – 163

---

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)

• Separate. Generally, I prefer long paragraphs on a single topic. I dislike the trend to small, one or two sentence paras often seen online or in news writing, as if humans can't remember how to concentrate. Here, I'd like to see first and second presidency paras. The interceding para is about trouble with the law, and, as such, needn't be combined. I would hesitate to draw wider conclusions and rules based on this one lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Separate - don't combine the paragraphs. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Jan 6 pardons in lead

Uninvolved closure requested.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

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: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] 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)

Point #1 suggests removing other topics rather than keeping this one. The question is more whether there are other more important topics to mention in the lead about Trump's presidency.

Re point 2, he does continue pardons but not of Jan 6thers. The other pardons are not mentioned in the lead. satkara❈talk 13:41, 23 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)

Oppose it is an extremely notable event that he pardoned people who violently took over the capitol building and as pointed out by Aquillion it is still mentioned to this day in articles. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. He did it on the first day in office [10] and it has been extensively covered by American and international media [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [etc...], it has been discussed in academia [17], it was commented on by the Justice Department[18] and by opposition Democrats [19]. It is something that features prominently in RS and therefore it should feature prominently in the article (in my understanding of Wikipedia P&G). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Not going to pass 10 Year test. It can be mentioned in body but not really suited for the lead per WP:TDS. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  It could pass the ten years test. It will be relevant in talking about what Trump has done in ten years and won’t be confusing and I’m not sure either way on the final one in the test. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This was one of the first acts Trump did during his second presidency, and the insurrection itself was one of the defining features of his first. Coverage has been extensive and comparable to the trade wars and Trump's criminal cases, which also are mentioned in the lead paragraph, and likely to be part of Trump's legacy as a president. Cortador (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal. The `support` alternative will help the article have a less woke-leaning, more neutral, encyclopedic tone. Historyexpert2 (talk)

Just curious: how come this signature didn't get a timestamp (19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC))? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible WP:3TILDES. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

How is including an action Donald Trump did in the lead woke? GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Why would we even use such a term? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - In terms of prose, removing this makes no sense as the lead discusses the capitol riots, and this is essential context. In terms of weight in the main, the main could certainly be expanded, but this is too consequential and well known to be brushed under the carpet. In support of that, see, for instance, the contribution from TurboSuperA+. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: At present, it looks like 12 supporting removal and 13 opposing removal. The phrase being considered is no longer bolded as stated in the Rfc introduction but is now blue linked to its sibling article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

bolded text in this sentence of the lead — suboptimal phrasing. I believe the OP was referring to the text the OP bolded in the RfC introduction. It was never bolded in the lead. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note to closer (and I'm not even sure that we need an uninvolved closer). The disputed content is longstanding content. It has been in the lead since January 31. This discussion hasn't established a new consensus per ErnestKrause's tally, so the status quo should prevail. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Uninvolved closure is needed because it's not about a tally. That's what makes a closer's task so difficult, and that difficulty is what makes all good closers worthy of the Wikimedia Medal of Honor, no mere barnstar.

  It is not enough to know who prevailed. We also need to know why they prevailed. That's an essential part of what uninvolved closers do. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

References

References

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)

  Why are we focusing on this one in particular? - I don't think we would if there wasn't a specific health subsection. Given that there is, Trump's doctor's opinion should be highly weighted. The doctor may be biased but we can only share multiple opinions. satkara❈talk 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Satkara, there was no health section before Trump announced his candidacy in 2015. There was a short paragraph in "personal life" about his golfing and alleged germaphobia. In December 2015, he released the letter signed by Dr. Bornstein, attesting that Trump would be the healthiest president ever. It was mentioned in the "General election" section. By October 2016, the paragraph had been transformed into a "Health" subsection in the "Personal life" section and included Trump's claims on the Dr. Oz show about never having indulged in alcohol or cigarettes. In March 2018, after another glowing medical report by Ronny Jackson, Trump decided to undergo the exam for dementia, so that got added. In 2019, Bornstein said that Trump had dictated the 2016 letter. And so it went, including when he was hospitalized with Covid. In 2021, we found out that Trump had been much sicker than the released medical reports indicated. The section was always more about Trump's lifestyle and his doctors' over-the-top claims than about Trump's actual health. Half of the cited NY Times article is about other stuff (previous released reports as mentioned before, no smoking/alcohol, no alcohol consumption, not releasing his medical records even after the Butler shooting). Unless he has a heart attack or some other grave medical condition, what are the chances this routine "nothing to see here" report is going to be mentioned again? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss, eight editors involved, two opposing, five supporting removal — time to remove? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is where I have difficulty. It's one of the few remaining unresolved process questions at this article. We're both involved, so we shouldn't be deciding between the two of us. At the same time, are we to list this and other discussions like it at WP:RFCL? Or just let it sit and hope someone uninvolved comes along and decides to help by closing? I don't know. If we sought a consensus about this consensus, it would naturally be divided along the same lines. Again, it's not about a tally (as a practical matter, we have to go by a tally for many smaller issues, but I don't think this is one of them). I elaborated elsewhere.

The relevant policy seems to expect us to just be grownups and work it out amongst ourselves, but that is not realistic. Apparently, the community has the same difficulty that I have. But I'd give a barnstar and surrender two of mine for a good solution. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(Argument clinic) Sit and hope—pin it and wait till next year? I just boldly edited to what I consider to be a succinct and neutral mention of this year's annual physical.

In April 2025, the White House released a memorandum on Trump's annual physical examination results. It said that Trump "remains in excellent health" and "exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health", mentioning his "active lifestyle" and "frequent victories in golf events" as contributing factors.

I think mentioning that it was the annual exam is more important than the name of whoever happens to be the Physician to the President, and the parts that were mocked in RS are worth mentioning rather than the cholesterol level without mentioning that the level was achieved with a statin and another medicine to lower the amount of LDL. Thoughts? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My thought: Yer on yer own, pal. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

My thought: first choice still — remove annual physical altogether. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Google Trends for Trumpism and MAGA

I've asked this before. Is it possible for the lead's final paragraph wording to be changed to MAGA movement? Wikipedia appears to defend the use of the term Trumpism, as this article does. Google Trends shows quite the opposite. The blue line for Trumpism is nearly flat. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The current Trump article uses the word Trumpism 8 times for narrative and cite titles; but only 3 times for MAGA in citations. I'm not sure what your statistics would look like for comparing how many newspaper article titles use the one term as opposed to the other term. Its not clear that it would be easy to get these statistics for the amount of usage of a specific word on various archive sources such as JSTOR or Web-of-Science, for example. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Are they true synonyms? Does MAGA include draconian deportations, for example? Are they expected to make America great again (by Trump)? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they are. I answered my own question. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If Trump and Melania had another baby, would it be a Trumpet? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What? That's kinda funny actually, but I don't see what it has to do with the article here. Just a joke, maybe. BeProper (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

They're the same thing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Google Trends is convincing enough to make this change. I really don't care about the kind of analysis ErnestKrause proposes (how many newspaper article titles?). Simple common sense ought to prevail. We all have free access to Google and the Wikipedia Library. Trumpism has 16,700 results and MAGA has 1,580,000 in Google Scholar, including the surname. Wikipedia Library has 11,577 for Trumpism and 120,222 for MAGA. Wikimedia doesn't offer free access to JSTOR Data for Research and JSTOR Text Analysis Support. I'm content to search free sources for word frequencies. How complicated do you want this to be? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I would be bold and fix this but what to do about this? <!-- DO NOT EXPAND on Trumpism without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item 68. --> -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

As ErnestK pointed out, the article doesn't mention MAGA — MOS:LEADNO applies (Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The three cited sources that do aren't talking about the Trumpism/MAGA movement. Business Insider mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an an article about Trump's actions/nonaction while the "MAGA mob" was attacking Congress. Reuters also mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an article about Trump appointing only "MAGA loyalists" in his second term. The third cite, a 2021 Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias, is one of seven sources for this sentence: His political base has been compared to a cult of personality which doesn't add a label to the cultlike behavior. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, it's Trump-branding of a term first used by Reagan (LMAGA doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). See the RfC of another Trump brand. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just Wikipedia acting smarter-than-thou. Reagan had no monopoly on MAGA, nor did the American colonists have a monopoly on Tea Party. Your argument escapes me—citation of three sources that don't mention Trumpism. Sort of like this article with the sum total of information amounting to this prose: "Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism."
• WP:COMMONNAME ought to prevail here: "Wikipedia...generally prefers the name that is most commonly used..." -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, not for text in the body of the article. And the appropriate comparison would be between "MAGA movement" and "Trumpism" (Google Trends), not between "MAGA" and "Trumpism." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Kinda the same as "Hitlerism" and "Nazism", they were essentially the same thing but had 2 different names, over time "Nazism" became the most common and "Hitlerism" is now rare. MilaKuliž (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

MAGA is much more neutral than trumpism. MAGA can be seen as good or bad but trumpism sounds only bad. 100.16.162.233 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

SusanLesch, "Trumpism" is the longstanding content. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. It's up to you to establish a consensus for the change. Your revert is in violation of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. BTW, I wasn't involved in the Trumpism/MAGA discussion and don't care one way or the other; my objection is based on the sources in the article. Google trends are not a reliable source. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, per WP:CALC, I asked on WP:RSN because my use of Google Trends appears to be a simple case of "Routine calculation."-SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for the difference between Trumpism and MAGA as not being identical terms; they have separate articles on Wikipedia. This could be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, MAGA is appearing in the lede without support in the main body. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, reverted because you found my edit to be a BRD violation. WP:RSN gave excellent advice to pursue this on the talk page. Choosing not to at this time. The Trumpism article failed verification for the name Trumpism and the article's equation with MAGA. (ErnestKrause was working on the wording at this writing.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

MAGA is a political slogan. Trumpism is the political ideology. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but there is a difference. I would support keeping it as is. BootsED (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to find any reasonable source for what is Trumpism. (Pulitzer-winner Carlos Lozada doesn't mention it in What Were We Thinking: A Brief Intellectual History of the Trump Era. Jon Sopel of the BBC makes fun of it: "But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.")

• Google AI seems to think Wikipedia is the best source.
• Wikipedia cites books and articles that don't even mention it.
• This article name checks it twice, with a comment to not expand on the idea.!-- DO NOT EXPAND on Trumpism without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item 68. -->

Does anyone else begin to think we're caught in WP:SELF self reference? Well-meaning editors compiled their thoughts and fears here without foundation. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My bad, Lozada mentions it but it's not in the index. He says on the right are "captive minds seeking to retrofit Trumpism into something approaching a coherent ideology." -SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Oxford University Press has announced a book coming out at the end of this year: The Trajectory of Trumpism: Talking about Racism, Fascism, Civil War, and Beyond, by Sanford F. Schram (2025). ErnestKrause (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying that because of this book, by the "end of this year" Trumpism will be a coherent ideology? Meanwhile back to the present state of affairs, I removed an extraneous reference to General Milley from Trumpism. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I like the word ideology. MAGA is a movement, Trumpism is an ideology. They are closely related but not the same thing. Just a passing thought. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No mention of Trump's assassination attempt in the lede / Bias?

Ronald Reagan has one. Let me assume: Trump doesn't deserve one, because the shooter 'missed', or 'grazed' his ear? Not very objective, is this place? Trump has had two assassination attempts against him, and the word 'assassination' is only mentioned in the article twice, three if you count the references cited. Every other president that suffered such things, once or twice, the word assassination is mentioned 8-20 times. There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article, like there is on every single other president who suffered an attempt or was assassinated.

And I am looking at all the people 'editing' this article, and those commenting on it; it is mostly the user Mandruss, Catherder and a handful of other people all over this article. That should not be allowed. It is clearly being manipulated by a very distinct group of people. Doing a basic search, the user Mandruss has made 7.5% of the edits to the Donald Trump page in its lifetime of existence. You cannot even load all of his edits, it crashes the server. This needs to be investigated. 2600:8801:B502:8300:804C:8DCB:9490:A5E6 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll start off by saying I don't agree with the IP's bad faith assumptions, here (a user cannot reasonably be condemned for putting a lot of effort into editing an article; really we need more Mandrusses). However, while I do think we need to be a bit ruthless in what we include in the lead, given the unending amount of content that could be there, I do think the assassination attempt(s) should be one that's included. It was extraordinary and a notable part of his presidential campaign; the raised-fist picture alone has become somewhat historic. — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I just think it’s strange that an article can be called ‘unbiased’ when it is almost unanimously edited and controlled by several people. It’s bizarre. I don’t know how anyone can read this article, coming in with an open mind, and not walk away disgusted. EDIT: and to that end, the article fails to be an objective piece of material. Trump was voted into office twice. Last time with the popular vote. Take someone from outer space who has never met Trump before. Someone from an island maybe. Force them to read this article and the only thing they can take away is utter disgust. Clearly this article is missing *something*, or 77 million people are insanely low information voters! Briefly moving through this article (more so the works cited), of these citations are dozens of articles designed to be hit pieces against Donald Trump without proper citation themselves (anonymous sources) or with a complete lack of evidence, just blanket statements. A statement person A made about Donald Trump is not evidence that he was aware how his business benefited from his own policies. How are people’s opinions of and or random statements made to journalists about Donald Trump being cited in an article about his life? I can point out more specifics right now but it’s late. This is my first time ever reading this article, and it gave me a very bad taste in my mouth. I then looked and did a brief overview of the edit history and saw that 5-10 users have committed over 50% of the total edits to the article. You don’t need to be a lover of statistics to understand something is amiss here. 2600:8801:B502:8300:24C7:1950:810D:4D13 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, you may have some points, and I can agree with you on a couple of your grievances. But on Wikipedia, the best way to propagate change is not by complaining about the existing content of the article, but rather by making legitimate, detailed suggestions on how the article could be improved (and why), then letting other editors give their thoughts about your proposals and try to build consensus for change. I recommend getting familiar with Wikipedia's content guidelines and determining how this article can be improved with regard to said guidelines. MilaKuliž (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

IP has a point 100.16.162.233 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Czello, there have been numerous discussions (starting with Archive 172) on how to mention the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida, and the Donald Trump raised-fist photographs in Trump's main bio. The longstanding consensus is to not mention it/them in the lead. If you want to propose changing the consensus, doing so in your response to someone posting bad faith assumptions doesn't appear to be productive. The IP's response to your comment confirmed that. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I had hoped the IP would drop the "bias" arguments in order to focus on the more useful topic that they ultimately started, which is why I chose to voice my support while calling out the ABF. — Czello ^(music) 12:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reluctant to defend myself since I shouldn't need to. The fact is that most of my edits are of the nature of this, this, and this. I am not a major contributor of new content at this article. Statistics lie if you don't know how to interpret them. It also doesn't help that you have very little knowledge of the situation you're talking about (regarding my editing); i.e., you are speaking from a position of ignorance, not a good look. Know what you don't know, and act accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Statistics lie if you don't know how to interpret them, especially when someone says that you made 7.5% of the edits. By authorship, it was 5.9% as of 12 seconds ago. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We do not include it as it is bloated already. No it is not biased as the lede is only a summary, It is mentioned in the body, so we not concealing it. But the constant assumptions of bad faith lead me to assume this violates wp:rightgreatwrongs and it is not a genuine call for NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

A minor footnote in Donald's biography with no lasting impact does not deserve a mention on the lead, and probably not in the main article either. There are much more memorable crimes and blunders by Donald to cover on the lead. Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan has one. He also had an operation in which

the rib cage was opened and the president's heart and lungs were examined. About two quarts of bloody fluid were drained from the left side of the chest, where they had collected between the lung and the lining of the chest cavity. The president also received a transfusion of about 2 1/2 quarts of blood. ... O'Leary said the bullet had not struck the heart or any major blood vessels with the chest. It entered the chest below the left arm, traveled slightly downward and struck the seventh rib, then ricocheted into the chest, traveling about three inches through the lower lobe of the left lung. All the bleeding appeared to be caused by the wound made in the lung tissue, O'Leary said. He said the bullet, severely distorted by its collision with the rib, had been removed from inside the chest.

Trump's injury was treated with a Band-Aid, and the medical report on his injury and treatment wasn't released.

There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article: oh yes, there is, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, linked inline in the second to last paragraph of Donald Trump#2024 presidential election. Happy reading! Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the level of injury that is significant, but the attempt itself. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The assassination attempt should be mentioned in the lede. It got a lot of coverage in the sources and was a notable part of his election campaign.13:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC) TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. BeProper (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

was a notable part of his election campaign — it's mentioned in the lead of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign: Trump also survived a minor injury in an assassination attempt. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the article for Theodore Roosevelt and the assassination attempt on him isn't mentioned either, and that was a more impressive episode than Trump's. I no longer think that the assassination attempt should be mentioned in the lede.

However, a potential issue is that this is the extent of the coverage the assassination attempt has received in the article:

On July 13, 2024, Trump was shot in the ear in an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Pennsylvania. Two days later, the 2024 Republican National Convention nominated him as their presidential candidate, with Senator JD Vance as his running mate. In September, he was targeted but unharmed in an assassination attempt in Florida.

It's the second to last paragraph in the 2024 presidential election section. Does it need more prominence in the body of the article, perhaps its own subheading? Something to think about. I have no strong feelings either way. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, how much more information are we planning on adding? Do we really need a whole subsection (3+ paragraphs) about the assassination attempt, considering he only sustained a minor injury? I've heard that it did have some effect on the 2024 election, but that can be discussed in the "2024 presidential election" section. MilaKuliž (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that as well. I guess we just have to live with it, my friend. I tried to take a stand like you, and then they pulled out a whole playbook to get me banned. Thankfully, I made a "peace treaty" with them, so I think I'm safe, but I'm not supposed to make edits or comments on pages relating to the United States anymore. Hopefully, they don't get mad at me for putting this one up. It's very unfortunate, and I wish you the best. BeProper (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I do have to say I'm in support of people like Mandruss, as long as they keep things neutral. BeProper (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Me too. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article, like there is on every single other president who suffered an attempt or was assassinated. - Maybe the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania has what you're looking for? MilaKuliž (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm probably about to say a very unpopular opinion - but while assassination attempts are very common in some parts of the world... in the western/developed world (including the US) they're very uncommon. I feel like it should not cause any issues to form a sentence like During the 2024 presidential campaign, he was the target of two assassination attempts in Pennsylvania and Florida or similar, with links as appropriate. The targeted assassination of a specific individual is rare in the US - even though political assassinations may be more common, they're usually not against a specific individual so much as they were the easiest to target to make the message clear. But in any case, I would appreciate anyone here making a valid argument against addint that short sentence, of less than 20 words, to the lead - since it is clearly a very important aspect of his life. Or are we saying that having attempts made to take your life is not important for someone's life? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. The assassination attempt(s) appeared to have some effect on the 2024 election, at least from what I've heard from various news sources. Other articles about prominent Western politicians who have suffered assassination attempts mention them in the lead, from what I've seen. So I don't think there should be a problem with adding that sentence. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt is a famous example where the assassination attempt is not mentioned in the lede. It does have its own subsection however, and I suggested that as a compromise/alternative for this article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a separate issue, needs to go into a separate discussion. Both events are mentioned in one sentence each, and we have a number of editors who don't like short sections with individual headings. I, for one, would oppose adding more material about the events. The inline links to the two "attempted assassination" articles suffices. We've had a number of discussions about how much material to add to the body, starting with this one and this one. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

since it is clearly a very important aspect of his life. Is it, though, i.e., are there reliable sources supporting your assertion? The shooting in Butler, PA, doesn't seem to have affected Trump's campaign and campaign rhetoric other than that he immediately monetized it; his reaction to the Florida event was to blame Biden and Harris and "far-left lunatics". Whether either event affected the vote is unclear. Re they're usually not against a specific individual so much as they were the easiest to target to make the message clear: applies here. The Butler shooter's message is unclear, but his list of targets included Biden, too. Trump was the one who visited the area where the shooter lived. The shooting of Reagan, who almost died from his injuries, is mentioned in the lead with six words in a long sentence about other stuff ("Reagan also survived an assassination attempt, fought public-sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, and was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic"). The lead in Gerald Ford's article doesn't mention the two assassination attempts against him, although two would-be assassins with handguns shot at him from up close. In one case the gun didn't fire, in the second one the shot missed because a bystander interfered. Of course, Ford didn't sell fight-fight-fight or assassination-themed merch, so there's that. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• This article is about Donald Trump. DJT was not behind the assassination attempt. Given the number of actions he has taken that will stand the test of time, doesn't make sense to me to include something in the lead that happened to him which doesn't appear to have any long term consequence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• The current summary in the election section of the shooting is very understated making it difficult to add into the lede. The following sentence if added from the main article for the shooting would make this Trump article in the election section more adequate and easier to summarize in the lede: "The shooting led to widespread sympathy for Trump on social media, and public figures across the political spectrum both domestically and internationally urged a decrease in tensions, condemning the assassination attempt.". ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Off topic, WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Widespread sympathy? Not how I remember it. The only people who had sympathy for him were already his supporters. The most the rest of us did was to say that we condemned the violence. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Maybe here, but on social media Democrats have been writing things like "I wish he hadn't survived". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.222.177 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC) One can believe that the attack was wrong and still wish that Trump had died. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC) You are a very contradictory user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.39.24 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good idea also. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Consider adding some more positive things about Trump

I read this, and it's all full of negative things about Trump. I know there are some negative things, but there are also many, many positive things about Trump. I think the editors here should consider adding in some positive things about Trump to balance this out. I know it's all from reliable sources, but there are also many reliable sources saying positive things. We must add these in, too. Maybe do the article half negative and half positive, if you know what I mean. BeProper (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We have discussed this man many times, can you name one positive thing we do not mention? Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember discussing this, but maybe we did. One thing, you say? Let me give you five off the top of my head: it fails to reasonably address his excellent pre-COVID economic performance, the impact of his deregulation and judicial appointments, the Abraham Accords or other positive foreign policies, the record-high voter turnouts for him, and how he's overall positively affecting America. Some of these are partially addressed, but half-heartedly and with no emphasis. Quite literally all the emphasis is focused on negative things about him. It's like this things up here to turn all the readers against him, almost. BeProper (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

"we" as in the project, look through the talk page archives for every answer to what you are asking. And we need RS to support what you claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

"how he's overall positively affecting America" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHH!!!! Now I know you are trolling us. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The what now? What in the world is that supposed to mean? Funny. BeProper (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be civil Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place of neutrality. Comments of this nature are unnecessary. Instead of replying with BWAHAHA, maybe say i disagree with this statement. Everyone else has been relatively civilized,so maybe you could try to be too, Khajidha 100.16.162.233 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Let us be civil. OurEchantedLeader (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Amen. Let's eat. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought for a while about something to say, but all I had in mind was "bruh". We say negative things about Trump because that's what so many reliable sources say. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, many, many reliable sources also say very positive things. BeProper (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

...and how he's overall positively affecting America. LMAO - Ya think? MilaKuliž (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

For his judicial appointments to be considered good we would need reliable sources for that. From what ive seen sources do not backup that he is overall good for America. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is entering disruptive territory. This comment is not much different from this one, which was closed here. Then you removed the closing, were reverted, removed the closing a second time, were reverted again, and here we are. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's because someone started a war with me by blocking all my posts without citing why. BeProper (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

No one started any war with you, and you need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs before someone does block you,. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe do the article half negative and half positive, if you know what I mean. You mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. I mean putting true things, not flat earth nonsense. BeProper (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Give us sources. Don't be like "oh Trump did X and Y thing", positive OR negative, without giving us sources supporting your point. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're calling "flat earth nonsense" is a matter of opinion and perspective. You don't seem to grasp that there can be two opposing viewpoints that are both perfectly legitimate. You have a bias just like everybody else. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• But we have to reflect what the sources say. If the weight of coverage in eg. the mainstream media and academia are largely negative, then our coverage has to reflect that weight - we're an encyclopedia, so we summarize what other people say rather than revealing hidden truths ourselves. See eg. WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Aquillion (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to make a short add about the bounce he received in the polls after the shooting, though the editors responding to the shooting thread above this one are without any particular opinion on it. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Since it seems that the neutrality of this article is frequently disputed, should we add a neutrality tag to the top of the article? BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, as complaints like the one above do not understand WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We should. Even a fully-neutral AI model read through this and said it is clearly negatively biased and is definitely stretching the borders on Wikipedia NPOV. BeProper (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Like I've said in the above thread, you may be right that parts of the article are a little slanted. But on Wikipedia, the best way to propagate change is not by complaining about the existing content of the article, but rather by making legitimate, detailed suggestions on how the article could be improved (and why), then letting other editors give their thoughts about your proposals and try to build consensus for change. I recommend getting familiar with Wikipedia's content guidelines and determining how this article can be improved with regard to said guidelines.

As for this article, it has been frequently expressed that the content is based off of reporting and information from reliable sources. If you disagree with the way a part of this article is written, or with some of the content(s) of this article, open a thread on this talk page and state exactly HOW and WHY you would/could improve it, along with sufficient reliable sources to back it up. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

True, the article sounds like it has a clear desire to promote left-wing Democratic party talking points. 2003:DA:C735:F600:A869:59B6:181A:91BD (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

See my comment above. If you have ACTUAL content change suggestions rooted in reliable sources, by all means, start a discussion on this page. But whining about the article's tone or general "bias" accusations won't trigger change. It never has. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This goes for all articles, not just Trump. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This discussion started as a question about whether to add a NPOV tag. That is a legitimate topic for this page. If the discussion evolves into one about whether this article is biased against Trump, I or someone else will likely close it per current consensus item 61. Participants need to read and take the time to understand WP:TRUMPRCB.

104.230.247.132 needs to read and take the time to understand WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a forum. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality of the the Flat Earth article is also frequently disputed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

What Floridians think of Trump

Would it be appropriate to include what Americans in individual states, like Florida, think about Donald Trump? For example, including recent survey results or polls? Alofaun3 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be overdetailed for Trump's biography article. Maybe the article Opinion polling on the second Donald Trump administration would be suitable for that kind of information. MilaKuliž (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alofaun3, the article Opinion polling on the second Donald Trump administration does currently have approval polls for states but does not have one for Florida yet. If you can fine polls of Floridians by reliable pollsters, you're welcome to add them to that page! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 23:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

"but does not have one for Florida yet" We don't have a poll from Donald's home state? How is this possible? Dimadick (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just as there are strongly Democratic American states, there are also strongly Republican American states; excluding one just because it is Republican is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.137.210 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't control what pollsters choose to poll; but in general, there is more polling in swing states (where small shifts can make a big difference.) Our article simply reflects the fact that more high-quality polling for such states exist. If you look at that page, the list of states with enough polling to get a subsection is pretty much a list of modern swing states - we don't have Florida or Texas, but we don't have Massachusetts or California either, because shifts in heavily red or blue states are less likely to flip control of the state government or to change the results of the 2026 election and therefore less likely to have short-term political consequences. --Aquillion (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

He's from New York… 100.16.162.233 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

His home state would be New York given he was born raised and spent a large ammount of his life there. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Home state" is ambiguous. It can mean 1) where you were born, 2) where you grew up, or 3) where you currently reside. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

ok fair enough GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's one, by online opinion polling company Civiqs. No idea whether they're reliable. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what they think? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Structure & content

The article should not anticipate the historiography, but provide key corner data on the person & human. There can also be m o r e of short data, e.g., including wealth status at the time ' ... '. (2025: according to: de[.]statista[.]com ). 2A02:3030:9:D7D1:9841:971D:CD22:712A (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please elaborate. What are we anticipating? What data is missing? MilaKuliž (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Net worth has long been a part of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It's too hot to try to parse "anticipate the historiography"; our guiding light is consensus #37 per WP:LASTING. One thing we don't do in this article is "wealth status at the time" because in Trump's case it fluctuates, currently pretty much on a daily basis. We update Trump's estimated net worth (see the last sentence of Donald Trump#Wealth) once a year, based on Forbes's annual update. When you go to the cite, search for "trump" to view his latest annual ranking. Then click "View profile" to view Forbes's daily estimates of Trump's wealth, as of today down from #700 in April to #741 in the world. He was #684 the last time the Wayback Machine saved the page (June 12). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

About this bias

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

---

THe bias on this article is insane. No other Wikipedia article has bias like this one does. Wikipedia should be ashamed about this article. I recommend that this article be removed from Wikipedia until the bias problems are fixed. 107.119.57.42 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2025 (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.

Consistent removal of lawsuits results from article, when the initiation of the law suit is in the article

There appears to be a policy among the editors of this page to support the inclusion of lawsuits initiated against Donald Trump, but then to exclude the results of the lawsuits once they become available. That sounds inconsistent for Wikipedia editors in general and is place here on the Talk page for discussion. These are the last three or four instances which have been reverted on the main page for lawsuit results which have been published by RS; all are currently excluded from the article:

(1) In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle the 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. Reverted: [20].

(2) Though many lawyers thought ABC would win the suit due to the high legal bar for defamation of public figures, after Trump was elected president a second time, ABC settled and paid $15 to the Trump presidential library, $1 million in legal fees, and gave an apology. Reverted: [21].

(3) In July 2025, Paramount parent company to 60 Minutes agreed to pay Trump $16 million USD for its Kamala Harris story which apparently published inaccurate information about Trump. Added: July 2, 2025.

(4) In June 2025, the Supreme Court supported Trump in many of his expansive Executive Orders in a ruling recorded by Ruth Marcus (journalist) in the New Yorker titled, "The Supreme Court Sides with Trump Against the Judiciary". Reverted: [22].

It appears to be odd that theses edits are being kept out of the article by reverts from other editors. Example (1) has Trump winning an award to $25 million USD, example (2) has Trump winning $15 million USD, example (3) has Trump winning $16 million USD; that's a total approaching $50 million USD, which is difficult to say is not notable. All of these edits are supported by multiple RS. Opening this thread for editor opinions and comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a president is essentially extorting money from media corporations is definitely worth pointing out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Article misleading and in desperate need of revision.

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

---

This article and is incredibly misleading, and is in desperate need of changes. As someone who doesn’t care about politics, this article is an absolute disgrace, and only shines negative light on this president. There is no mention of anything positive, while negatives can obviously be included, Wikipedia and its editors should be ashamed that this is online. 2603:6080:FB00:E500:F4E7:CE7F:35FB:1945 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2025

Donald Trump is the worst president by any measure the Ubited States has ever had. 2601:40F:4480:CC2:9D39:66E3:1B0C:5DF (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)