Talk:Donald Trump#rfc AAC6E9C

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Second presidency of Donald Trump Second presidential transition of Donald Trump ... or dozens of other articles, as listed at WP:TRUMPOTA. Thanks!

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards or against Trump. Why won't you fix it? A1: The answer is too long to include here, but please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especially since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Television: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. On 16 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Donald Trump to Donald J. Trump. The result of the discussion was not moved. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian. Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page". Fox News. Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate. Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Wikipedia for research". The Boston Globe. Eugene Smith (June 3, 2025). "Who writes Trump's Wikipedia page? Meet the 'edit warriors'". The Times. This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 149 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 May 26 to June 1, 2024 June 23 to 29, 2024 July 14 to 20, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 October 20 to 26, 2024 October 27 to November 2, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 November 10 to 16, 2024 November 17 to 23, 2024 November 24 to 30, 2024 January 12 to 18, 2025 January 19 to 25, 2025 January 26 to February 1, 2025 February 2 to 8, 2025 February 9 to 15, 2025 February 16 to 22, 2025 February 23 to March 1, 2025 March 2 to 8, 2025 March 9 to 15, 2025 March 16 to 22, 2025 March 30 to April 5, 2025 April 6 to 12, 2025

Other talk page banners

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (67 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,277 10,277 Early life and education 2,838 2,838 Business career 148 37,034 Real estate 5,729 17,065 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,271 6,271 Atlantic City casinos 3,705 3,705 Golf clubs 1,360 1,360 Licensing the Trump name 1,469 1,469 Side ventures 7,399 7,399 Foundation 5,104 5,104 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,361 2,361 Wealth 3,488 3,488 Media career 4,003 5,791 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,788 1,788 Early political aspirations 4,399 4,399 2016 presidential election 16,340 16,340 First presidency (2017–2021) 834 94,852 Early actions 1,478 1,478 Conflicts of interest 5,386 5,386 Domestic policy 20,475 20,475 Race relations 6,828 6,828 Pardons and commutations 2,701 2,701 Immigration 14,800 14,800 Foreign policy 9,648 9,648 Personnel 5,153 5,153 Judiciary 3,933 3,933 COVID-19 pandemic 6,477 6,477 Investigations 14,074 14,074 Impeachments 3,065 3,065 2020 presidential election 5,511 21,792 Loss to Biden and rejection of outcome 9,261 9,261 January 6 Capitol attack 7,020 7,020 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,770 16,614 Legal issues 10,844 10,844 2024 presidential election 16,165 16,165 Second presidency (2025–present) 1,856 57,782 Early actions, 2025–present 6,286 6,286 Conflicts of interest, 2025–present 5,099 5,099 Mass terminations of federal employees 10,358 10,358 Domestic policy, 2025–present 12,446 14,306 One Big Beautiful Bill Act 1,860 1,860 Immigration, 2025–present 5,805 5,805 Foreign policy, 2025–present 8,336 8,336 Personnel, 2025–present 3,139 3,139 Judiciary, 2025–present 2,597 2,597 Political practice and rhetoric 10,819 54,545 Racial and gender views 9,785 9,785 Link to violence and hate crimes 9,997 9,997 Conspiracy theories 2,263 2,263 False or misleading statements 10,093 10,093 Social media 5,744 5,744 Relationship with the press 5,844 5,844 Personal life 18 9,844 Family 1,389 1,389 Health 5,284 5,284 Religion 3,153 3,153 Assessments 18 5,645 Public image 3,179 3,179 Scholarly rankings 2,448 2,448 See also 111 111 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 14,002 Books 3,817 3,817 Journals 10,167 10,167 Further reading 510 510 External links 6,121 6,121 Total 374,828 374,828

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

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. A good American English dictionary is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
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 unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash (" – "). Do not code the actual em dash character (which can be ambiguous in the code) or the {{emdash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource). Instead, code the HTML entity —.
6. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
7. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".

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.

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

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Separate - don't combine the paragraphs. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this: On Independence Day, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. The bill extended the tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while adding additional tax deductions, allocating additional funding for immigration enforcement, and adding additional work requirements for Medicaid eligibility. The bill was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the budget deficit by $3.4 trillion compared to the baseline of the 2017 tax cuts expiring.^[1]

I quite agree that the Act needs to be covered in detail but that doesn't come close. NPR has a short version:

The legislative effort fulfills key campaign pledges that Trump made during his reelection bid — including making hefty tax cuts passed during his first term permanent. But it violates a key promise too: Trump promised repeatedly during the campaign not to touch Medicaid benefits, the joint federal and state program that provides health care for more than 70 million low-income, elderly and disabled Americans.

The sprawling GOP bill — clocking in at nearly 1,000 pages — represents a dramatic realignment of the federal government's role in American life, shifting resources from the social safety net and investments in clean energy, and reorienting them to finance trillions of dollars in new spending on tax cuts, immigration enforcement and national defense. ...

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group of professional staffers who provide information and analysis to support the legislative process, estimates that the cuts could result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. ...[It also] estimates the bill will increase the deficit ... by $3.4 trillion over 10 years.

We should also cover how Trump pressured representatives, e.g., with threats to primary them, into voting for the bill.

Lead follows body. Trump signing an act — big deal. He was the driving force behind this one. CNN: But Trump’s iron grip on his own party, combined with what a White House official described as an "omnipresent" effort by the president to get Republicans on board, culminated in the bill’s passage in the House on Thursday with only two GOP defections in the chamber. In many ways, the event marks the payoff for weeks of effort by the president and his team to get the bill across the finish line. ... To pay for the new spending and declines in tax revenue, the measure cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, along with cuts to food assistance. But it will still, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, add $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit, which does not include the cost of servicing the debt. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for the bill is called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is why that name was used in the edit rather than "The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14", the same way that this article refers to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rather than its lengthier reconciliation name. The reference to Trump "signing" the bill was also following the way this page refers to him "signing" the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rather than "driving" it or similar language.

The edit attempted to give a factual description of the major provisions of the bill, including the CBO's projection of the impact on the deficit. It used a RS (the Wall Street Journal) as the source, although additional sources can be added. The NPR snippet included above has more words ("sprawling", "dramatic") but fundamentally doesn't seem to include much more details than the initial edit.

Politicians do typically pressure representatives to pass high-stakes bills (e.g. Lyndon Johnson's famous "Johnson Treatment"), if that is important enough to include in the body, it should not be at the expense of factual descriptions of what the bill's provisions are.

I think the initial edit should be restored albeit if there are more factual details that need to be added (such as on the removal of clean energy credits) they can be included in the body. The lead should also mention this bill but having a consensus edit to the body first makes sense. Onyxqk (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the Johnson treatment (feeling that "a St. Bernard had licked your face for an hour, [and] had pawed you all over" ), but Johnson was Senate majority leader at the time, i.e., Primus inter pares, not president and modern party boss. I made a few attempts at drafting a text but gave up for now, started updating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act article instead. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What particular items need to be included in an updated version of the edit to avoid it being reverted again? It would make sense to have this discussion now rather than not include relevant information in the article.

Here's a proposed edit to the body in the 'domestic policy' section, updating the original edit I had made with a mention of the clean energy credit removal:

On Independence Day, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. The bill extended the tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while adding additional tax deductions, allocating additional funding for immigration enforcement, removing clean energy credits, and adding additional work requirements for Medicaid eligibility. The bill was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the budget deficit by $3.4 trillion compared to the baseline of the 2017 tax cuts expiring.

You or any other editors are welcome to add additional context that might be needed on top of that edit and further discussions can be had around that, but the article shouldn't avoid mentioning the bill at all for much longer. Onyxqk (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for the crystallization of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", WP:WEIGHT. One thing the sources — whether right, left, or center — seem to agree on is that the tax cuts will add $4.n trillion to the deficit by 2034; sources on the right tend to gloss over or don't mention the fact that $1.n trillion will be offset by cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and federal funding for ACA, i.e., people losing coverage under that program. The latest CBO estimate cited in WP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was published before the Senate's revision. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed edit mentions both the additional requirements for Medicaid eligibility and the CBO's projected increase in budget deficit - the $3.4 trillion number in the edit came from the Wall Street Journal article cited after the Senate's revision was signed into law. Would amending the edit to mention SNAP (e.g. "adding additional work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP eligibility") work?

Regarding the inclusion of "viewpoints", the "health care reform" section of the Barack Obama Wikipedia article might be a good comparison point - it does not include praise or criticism of the Affordable Care Act, it just describes what the bill does and includes the CBO projection of the bill's impact on the deficit. Since this bill was just recently passed, it might make sense to start small with the initial edit and then expand it over time as needed. Onyxqk (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the WSJ due to its impenetrable paywall. Their take, according to your edit, on what's most important in the bill seems a bit Murdoch-skewed towards Trump talking points. A few other sources:

• Newsweek: "The bill continues tax cuts from President Trump's first stint in the White House, funds his border wall plan, and increases defense spending. The associated fiscal impact of this is offset by reducing federal support for key components of the social safety net, including food assistance and health coverage programs."
• New York Times: Tax cuts now, safety net cuts after the midterm election.
• Key items according to the BBC
• CBS: "the bill is partially paid for by significant cuts to health care and nutrition programs. ... contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts ... The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next 10 years and leave millions without health insurance."
• AP News: "At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. ... funds the border wall, deportations and a missile shield ... Medicaid, SNAP face deep cuts to fund bill’s tax breaks and spending" Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles say essentially the same thing though. The only difference I can see is they use adjectives like "sprawling" and mention "deep cuts" to "heath coverage" without precision as to what the bill does in policy terms (imposing work requirements on Medicaid eligibility). The edit includes the $3.4 trillion CBO projection mentioned in the articles you link. I think the edit should avoid predicting the bill's perceived negative or positive effects (other than the CBO budget projection), following the example of the way the ACA is covered in the Barack Obama Wikipedia article. Readers can decide for themselves whether they oppose or support the bill's provisions.

From WP:RS: "Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces."

I would agree that using the Wall Street Journal's opinion section as a source would be non-ideal, but for news it should be fine since the factual content in it is the same as the sources you include. If it would help, could amend the edit to add the AP link you have as a second source. Onyxqk (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the BBB information back into the article, incorporating the feedback from the talk page discussion. In line with WP:NOTPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, please edit the text to add additional information if needed rather than reverting and removing the information entirely from the article. Onyxqk (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THis is not and will not be the only act of his presidency. In an already bloated article, we do not need this much detail on one act. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space should take a bow for the copyedit. The paragraph reads exceptionally well. It will be trimmed in good time. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the kind words. That was the bow; now for the trim prediction: huh? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying keep the para now—it's a brilliant summary. Can be trimmed organically if Congress passes significant legislation in the next three and a half years. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This tag should be added for consistency

[[Category:21st-century American criminals]] Sylvan1971 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged. [1] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we have existing consensus to omit infobox criminal and a first-sentence use of the word criminal. Neither proscribes the use of the category. Technically, this article is already in Category:American criminals, since it's in multiple subcategories. This would add one additional such subcategory, and readers who use the categories (if they exist), are probably just as likely to be interested in intersections of crime and occupation (Category:American businesspeople convicted of crimes) as crime and time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that we have a consensus against this category; this is not a process objection. But it is not irrelevant that 66 and 69 both decided against the word "criminal". And the article includes nothing to the effect of "Trump is a criminal." Therefore, the category is not consistent with the accepted approach to the word in this article. Go call him a criminal in a different article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article states several times that Trump has multiple felony convictions. That makes him a criminal by definition. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not "Is Trump a criminal", but rather "Should this article call Trump a criminal". I have never disputed that Trump is a criminal by the dictionary definition. We are not bound by the dictionary, and I believe the dictionary omits a lot of nuance in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for language in the article. I am merely asking that the tag be added to the infobox so that users looking at the "21st-century ciminal page would find a link to this page. I am arguing for consistency across this dictionary. Sylvan1971 (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

66 and 69 both decided against the word "criminal" - not really. 66 is about using the "infobox criminal" template, 69 about adding "criminal" to the first sentence. Trump is a criminal: we say "was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records" instead, per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. Category of one: American presidents convicted of crimes. Maybe the label should be removed from "Category:21st-century American criminals", too, i.e., rename it "21st-century Americans convicted of crimes" or s.th. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Space above. Trump is by definition a criminal, and the former two RfC's were simply about not mentioning it in the first paragraph of the lead and putting an infobox on the page. Nothing prohibits categorizing the page this way. BootsED (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this stand? I do not see the tag as of this post. The fact is he is a convicted felon. By definition, a criminal. Why is this controversial (other than for political reasons)? Sylvan1971 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this controversial - Perhaps because not all editors see things in simplistic black and white. I've said it before: I pled guilty to a felony charge 40 years ago, but I would take offense to being characterized as a criminal. What I did is not what I am, dictionary or no dictionary. As much as I dislike Trump, I will continue to resist the double standard. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to resist the double standard I don't quite see what "double standard" you refer to here. Could you develop? Jeppiz (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard One, which I apply to myself: A person convicted once on felony charges should not be flatly characterized as a criminal. That should be reserved for people with a history of convictions.
• Standard Two, which editors here seek to apply to Trump: A person convicted once on felony charges should be characterized as a criminal. Because the dictionary says so.

Misdemeanors are crimes. Therefore, by the dictionary definition, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor is a criminal. Add the felons and I'll hazard a guess that half of Wikipedia editors are criminals. Either you go with the dictionary, or you don't; there is no halfway on this. Who here is prepared to add this category to the BLPs of all U.S. presidents who have been convicted of a misdemeanor? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was not convicted once, he was convicted 34 times.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or he was convicted once on 34 counts. Pointless semantics. The point is that there is no history of felony convictions, which is the standard I choose to apply. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s really shocking that, based on your personal history, you are blocking adding a reference to a category list. This isn’t grey, it’s not semantics, it’s black and white. This calls the neutrality of Wikipedia into question. How do we escalate this? Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss has a point, though. Do RS call Trump a criminal? I think the fact they don't carried the previous discussions, and I don't see why this category is different. Riposte97 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On standard one I would argue if that one conviction is 34 felony charges I would argue that deserves inclusion given how many it is.

As for Standard two as noted below the Category:American criminals states someone has to be convicted of a felony to be included. So based on that Trump could be included but that doesn't mean every person who committed a Misdemeanor has to be. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the categories could be improved, but Trump's convictions place him in Category:American criminals and Category:21st-century American criminals just the same as his former lawyer Michael Cohen, Hunter Biden (including his pardon), and Dinesh D'Souza (including his pardon). This is different from labeling someone a criminal in the body or lead of the article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss You reverted my edit and re-added the category on 29 June only to "challenge" and remove the category yourself 8 days later. Why? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your challenge had a rationale of "no consensus". As I clearly stated in my edit summary, "no consensus" is not a valid rationale for challenge unless something is protected by existing consensus. So I reverted you as a process objection. At the same time, I had a content objection to the category, so I challenged it five minutes later (not 8 days; I don't know what you're referring to there) with that valid rationale. The point is that how we get from A to B is almost as important as getting to B. It is not irrelevant merely because the outcome is the same. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your challenge had a rationale of "no consensus".

That's not what I wrote. I said: "While I personally agree, something like this shouldn't be added without talk page consensus". I was telling them to seek consensus on the talk page.

five minutes later (not 8 days;

My mistake, I looked at a different edit.

The point is that how we get from A to B is almost as important as getting to B.

No, it is not, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stick around. I think you'll find that this article has a bit more "bureaucracy" (i.e. commitment to process) than most. The fact that this has survived/persisted for some eight years is a clear indication that a majority of its editors have agreed that that's a good thing (at this highly visible and highly contentious article, not necessarily at all articles). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss what, what? You keep dangling this 40-year old felony charge in front of us. RFKJr. also pleaded guilty to a felony charge for possession of heroin 42 years ago (no problem in the Trump administration, and never mind the brain worm or bear cub roadkill disposal), and his article doesn't call him a criminal. I agree with MOS:CONVICTEDFELON: Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The description and its placement should not give undue weight to the crime. The question is what is due weight for the only former president (U.S. president) ever convicted of a felony and then elected to a second term? AFAIK, we haven't discussed moving He was found guilty of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony from the fourth to the first paragraph; maybe we should do so now. I haven't done a thorough archive search. I stumbled across this one proposing to mention the conviction in the second paragraph. The discussion was shut down with the false statement that the matter was being discussed in Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_187#Proposal_to_supersede_consensus_#50, the RfC that is the basis for #69. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose adding this category to anyone convicted solely of a misdemeanor. There's consensus at Category:American criminals to only include people in it or its subcats if they "have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a noteworthy felony" (with more details and exception visible there for those who are interested). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we escalate this dispute? Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to escalate. Give it another couple days for local discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to see an RfC on this. It would absorb a huge amount of editor time for a category decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding no RFC. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it would take an RFC. Broader consideration is needed and time is not of the essence. There are fair points on both sides and I dont see a good reason not to get broader input on one of the most trafficked articles on the pedia. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to RfC. It's been only two days and three or four editors with opinions on whether to add or not. As for the point of contention, it's a category—how many people even look at those, especially at the dozens listed on this page? There's American internet company founders, American anti-communists, American critics of Islam, American rhetoricians, Critics of Marxism, Anti-transgender activists — only if e.g. calling your Democratic opponents Marxists and communists makes you a critic of Marxism or an anti-communist. What's one category more or less? Also, a better place for an RfCA would be the Category:21st-century American criminals page to clarify what the category means. It says it's "for American people that are notable for criminal actions during the 21st century". Many of the people included are notable only for their crimes; fewer, but still quite a few, are not. Those include Michael Cohen (lawyer) who went to jail for making the hush money payments that Trump was convicted of booking as lawyer fees, Steve Bannon, Hunter Biden, Brittney Griner (I guess Russian trumped-up charges count, too), Peter Navarro, Phil Spector. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding the category. Donald Trump meets the prerequisites for Category:American criminals (conviction for a felony in a United States District Court for an act still punishable as a felony if it were committed today) and the additional requirement for subcategory Category:21st-century American criminals (the conviction took place in the 21st century). Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Space4Time3Continuum2x. Mr. Trump has multiple felony convictions. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Sittin' On A Fence - I'd like to see multiple, high quality RS using the term 'criminal', not saying he committed crimes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, although I wouldn't call it fence-sitting. I'd call it put up or shut up. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just thought I'd add an ancient Stones song title to lighten the mood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion is going nowhere. Personal political views are trumping logic and consistency. This places the Wikipedia project in a bad light. Fact: trump was convicted of multiple felonies. Therefore he belongs in the category. I raised this topic on July 7 and if this discussion doesn’t soon reach consensus, I will request an RfC. Sylvan1971 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, one mark of an inexperienced editor is a claim that they are obviously right when a number of experienced editors disagree with them. You said request an RfC, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean start an RfC, I hope you have enough experience to structure and frame an RfC correctly. That experience is not evident in your 370 edit count on an account that you've been editing under for 17 years.

  Personal political views - If you think opponents of this category are mostly Trump supporters, you are sadly and fatally mistaken—another consequence of inexperience. If you look at the current consensus list, you'll see a fairly healthy mix of Trump-favorable, Trump-unfavorable, and Trump-neutral. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, the “experienced editor” card. This isn’t a matter of me being “right.” The fact is the subject was convicted of crimes. That makes him a criminal. As a person who pled guilty of a felony decades ago, you should recuse yourself from this discussion. Sylvan1971 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact is the subject was convicted of crimes. That makes him a criminal. In your unsupported opinion, which is worthless in a discussion.

  • Valid argument: "X is true because [...]"
  • Invalid argument: "X is true" [because I say so/anybody with half a brain knows it's true/the sky is blue/it's common knowledge]

  If you meant to say "That makes him a criminal per the dictionary", fine. I've already rejected the dictionary for this case, so we're deadlocked on that. I would disagree with your argument, but it would be a valid argument. Other users will decide who has the best argument, theoretically.

  you should recuse yourself from this discussion Uh, that's gonna be a no. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, it’s inappropriate for you muse about whether I “think opponents of this category are mostly Trump supporters.” This is not about support or opposition. It’s about facts

  and consistency. Sylvan1971 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's not about support or opposition of Trump, I haven't a clue what you meant by Personal political views. Too off-topic for this discussion, but you can hit me up at my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you want RS to call him a criminal when the categories criteria does not include that and he first said criteria?GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because we rely on WP:RS and this is a WP:BLP. Look, I personally believe he's a criminal. But before using the term in WikiVoice, I'd like to see it in RS-voice. An encyclopedia should follow, not lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes Wiki relies on reliable sources but when putting someone in this category surely those reliable sources should be about if he fits the category per the conditions set out in the category rather than stating he's a criminal. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you committed crimes, you're a criminal... _pbp 21:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Include this category: Dude's been convicted (although not punished). His convictions can be sourced. _pbp 21:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody claims otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, I am not asking for a modification of this page. I am not asking for the subject to be labeled a “criminal.” I am simply asking that he be added to the page which is described as “ This category is for people that are specifically noteworthy as criminals.” Sylvan1971 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed moving the category Category:American criminals and its subcategories such as Category:21st-century American criminals to Category:Americans convicted of crimes and Category:21st-century Americans convicted of crimes, respectively. Here's the link if anyone wants to participate. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used a sentiment analysis tool on this article out of curiosity since there are often accusations that the article is biased. It generated a list of the most negative words found in the article and gave it an overall sentiment analysis of 'very negative'. While there are many valid reasons why negative words from a sentiment analysis standpoint could be used in the article (for instance, in describing criminal charges), there might also be an opportunity to explore swapping out negative words for neutral words in cases where it does not overly impact the meaning of the text.

One example might be the word "suspicious" that the sentiment analysis tool flagged. That comes from the sentence in the article "Many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials were discovered." It might be worth editing this to just say "Many links between Trump associates and Russian officials were discovered" to provide a more neutral tone without changing any factual content.

Putting the list of the words flagged in the sentiment analysis here for discussion in case there are any edits that can achieve consensus.

Most negative words found in the article 'Donald Trump': ['imposed', 'ban', 'cuts', 'war', 'contradicted', 'losing', 'attack', 'abuse', 'abuse', 'fraud', 'guilty', 'felony', 'sentenced', 'penalty', 'felony', 'prejudice', 'imposed', 'intimidation', 'lawsuits', 'conflicts', 'racist', 'misleading', 'conspiracy', 'worst', 'difficult', 'war', 'charges', 'contempt', 'litigation', 'no', 'lost', 'lawsuits', 'no', 'lower', 'burden', 'humiliating', 'avoid', 'dead', 'struggling', 'debt', 'losses', 'lagging', 'worthless', 'debt', 'bankrupt', 'blocks', 'lost', 'stopped', 'seriously', 'miss', 'miss', 'miss', 'disagreements', 'miss', 'violated', 'hard', 'lied', 'pay', 'stopped', 'violations', 'violated', 'pay', 'debt', 'attack', 'pay', 'fights', 'resigned', 'avoid', 'attack', 'fired', 'deficit', 'strange', 'bias', 'obsolete', 'imposing', 'bitter', 'restrict', 'illegal', 'pay', 'illegal', 'criticized', 'racist', 'criticism', 'crime', 'rapists', 'fired', 'battle', 'block', 'criminal', 'leaked', 'loss', 'avoid', 'defections', 'losing', 'protests', 'protested', 'conflicts', 'blind', 'affected', 'violating', 'lower', 'recession', 'cuts', 'penalty', 'lower', 'deficit', 'debt', 'debt', 'war', 'failed', 'leave', 'rejects', 'weakened', 'severely', 'ill', 'delayed', 'suspended', 'blocked', 'litigation', 'fail', 'arguing', 'unsuccessful', 'cuts', 'criticized', 'failing', 'anti', 'gun', 'anti', 'punishment', 'prisoners', 'torture', 'hell', 'worse', 'hatred', 'violence', 'criticized', 'protesters', 'condemned', 'racist', '187', 'condemn', 'racist', 'protests', 'controversially', 'protesters', 'protesters', 'condemned', 'anti', 'brutality', 'protesters', 'charged', 'violent', 'illegal', 'harsh', 'stop', 'illegal', 'lows', 'avoid', 'emergency', 'disagreement', 'denied', 'protests', 'blocked', 'ban', 'ban', 'excluded', 'ban', 'outrage', 'blaming', 'stop', 'pressure', 'detained', 'risk', 'stopped', 'limited', 'uncertainty', 'strained', 'criticized', 'war', 'imposing', 'unfair', 'infringement', 'weakened', 'toughest', 'imposed', 'critics', 'criticized', 'weapons', 'serious', 'threat', 'broke', 'no', 'resigned', 'fired', 'forced', 'disparaged', 'forced', 'resign', 'no', 'anti', 'disparaged', 'disagreed', 'questioned', 'attacks', 'ignored', 'warnings', 'attacks', 'anti', 'protests', 'combat', 'protests', 'pressured', 'severe', 'criminal', 'fired', 'suspicious', 'unconcerned', 'criminal', 'complaint', 'pressured', 'abuse', 'attack', 'charged', 'crime', 'racism', 'doubts', 'rigged', 'fraud', 'blocked', 'refused', 'lost', 'loss', 'rejection', 'fraud', 'rejected', '86', 'no', 'pressuring', 'blocked', 'attack', 'weapons', 'barrier', 'fight', 'hell', 'broke', 'attack', 'injured', 'died', 'attack', 'critics', 'imposing', 'pressure', 'dominate', 'war', 'accused', 'raping', 'abuse', 'pay', 'lawsuit', 'accusing', 'pay', 'attack', 'attack', 'criminal', 'charges', 'conspiracy', 'charges', 'charges', 'guilty', 'felony', 'no', 'penalty', 'punitive', 'prejudice', 'disqualified', 'attack', 'violent', 'harsher', 'dehumanizing', 'anti', 'harsher', 'enemies', 'fascist', 'rigged', 'refused', 'cheated', 'rigged', 'assassination', 'assassination', 'felony', 'charged', 'violently', 'attacked', 'ignored', 'violated', 'challenged', 'lawsuits', 'conflicts', 'conflicts', 'blind', 'conflicts', 'charges', 'bribe', 'violation', 'fired', 'hostile', 'excluded', 'leave', 'fired', 'low', 'unemployment', 'cuts', 'emergency', 'slashing', 'fired', 'charges', 'accused', 'problems', 'incompetence', 'aggressively', 'threatened', 'forced', 'cuts', 'cuts', 'deficit', 'cuts', 'disabling', 'terrorist', 'criminals', 'failed', 'suspended', 'enemies', 'error', 'criminal', 'terrorism', 'criticism', 'dead', 'death', 'indifference', 'hostility', 'threats', 'stop', 'leave', 'war', 'broke', 'contentious', 'confrontation', 'imposing', 'argued', 'misunderstood', 'flawed', 'suspended', 'criticism', 'threatened', 'critics', 'fears', 'crisis', 'adverse', 'anger', 'distrust', 'disparages', 'fear', 'anti', 'racist', 'racist', 'racists', 'racist', 'racist', 'accused', 'racism', 'guilty', 'raping', 'racist', 'conspiracy', 'pressuring', 'fraudulent', 'attacks', 'conspiracy', 'disparaged', 'accused', 'rape', 'denied', 'violence', 'hate', 'violence', 'conspiracy', 'terrorism', 'hate', 'prejudicial', 'attacks', 'protesters', 'prosecuted', 'violent', 'hate', 'arguing', 'criminal', 'violence', 'threats', 'violence', 'condemn', 'attack', 'violence', 'conspiracy', 'conspiracy', 'hoax', 'conspiracy', 'defeat', 'misleading', 'misleading', 'misleading', 'shortage', 'panic', 'misinformation', 'crime', 'terror', 'attacks', 'weakened', 'delayed', 'weakened', 'lies', 'banned', 'attack', 'criticism', 'misinformation', 'attack', 'banned', 'loss', 'misinformation', 'ban', 'hate', 'accused', 'bias', 'fake', 'enemy', 'criticism', 'prosecuted', 'lose', 'lawsuits', 'limited', 'accused', 'bias', 'drunk', 'waste', 'questioned', 'critical', 'erroneous', 'lower', 'worst', 'lowest', 'worst', 'risks', 'worst']

Sentiment Analysis for 'Donald Trump':

  Positive: 0.093

  Negative: 0.107

  Neutral: 0.8

  Compound: -0.9997

Overall sentiment: Very Negative Onyxqk (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you're suggesting whitewashing this article to remove legitimate, factual, and well sourced negativity just because you think that it's too negative?

It's not our fault that the vast majority of Trump's life - from his business failures/scams to his presidencies, has been negative. If he didn't want an article about him to be "very negative", then he should've thought about that before he did things that are "very negative".

In your example, it would be a WP:NPOV violation to remove the word "suspicious". The notable/WP:DUE information is not that he had links to Russians - it's specifically that they were suspicious links to Russians that could have led to bribes, social engineering, and the like. So you're wrong that it wouldn't change any factual content - in fact, it would change the most important fact of that sentence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting whitewashing the article and there are many cases where it does not make sense to change or remove words based on sentiment analysis. The article having a "very negative" sentiment in itself may not necessarily be a problem (to test the tool, I also checked the tool on the article for Hitler, which understandably received a "very negative" sentiment analysis, and the article for Barack Obama, which received a "very positive" sentiment analysis).

It may be useful though to identify negative words where they are not actually necessary in a sentence to better comply with NPOV (two edits I just made based on this was to change "bitter debate" to "intense debate" and to remove "harsher" from a sentence where "dehumanizing" is already used). Those edits, or the removal of "suspicious", or any other change, may or may not make sense to keep, but this would not entail removing any factual content or negativity expressed from reliable sources.

From NPOV:

'Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.' Onyxqk (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't editorializing. We are reporting what the reliable sources say. That is not editorializing. We provide "judgmental" points of view when those points of view are prevalent in reliable sources. Furthermore, the part you quote clearly says it's about "opinions and conflicting findings". There are no conflicting findings for the words you removed. They are considered suspicious by a significant majority of reliable sources, etc. It's not our fault that Trump may see him having "suspicious" connections as a negative thing. He should've thought about that before he maintained suspicious connections. Lastly, "suspicious" isn't really what that section is about. That section is about using language like "this person killed five people in cold blood". While it may be appropriate to report the person was convicted of killing 5 people, "in cold blood" is editorializing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main part I am trying to address is the "disinterested tone" aspect. One of the other edits I had made was removing "harsher" from the sentences "He used harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency. His harsher rhetoric against his political enemies has been described by some historians and scholars as authoritarian, fascist, and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history." That does not change the meaning of those sentences - they are still saying his rhetoric is "dehumanizing" and is described by historians as "fascist". The word "harsher" on top does not seem necessary to convey the meaning of those sentences. Onyxqk (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsher is disinterested. It's comparative - it is saying that "compared to the anti-immigrant rhetoric used during his presidency, it was even harsher after the fact". It's not just "more dehumanizing" that's important - the point is that his tone changed overall so that even when it wasn't dehumanizing, it was still harsher than things he said during his presidency.

I see a little bit more where you're going with this, and while I'm opposed to making those changes, I won't revert again if someone else makes them after seeing this discussion - for "harsher" (I still am very against removing the word "suspicious" as it's specifically sourced). However, I would encourage you to propose further edits here beforehand so they can be discussed and others can provide their views - you can use subsections in this section to split out specific changes you're proposing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

harsher, more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric: I replaced the comma with "and". Harsher refers to Trump's use of terms such as "blood bath", "country-threatening", "country-wrecking"; dehumanizing refers to "they're animals", “prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients and terrorists, the worst they have”, per the cited source. harsher rhetoric against his political enemies: I removed harsher, which is waaay too wishy-washy for the language he used ("the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country"), and added the specific language. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many suspicious links. From the TIME source: "the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows". From the Washington Post source: "complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships" [followed by a list of Trump associates and family and cabinet members with their links to Russia], "none of the relationships above are intended to show misbehavior by those involved. The broad question at stake is the extent to which Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and, if it did, the extent to which it may have leveraged relationships with Trump’s team to that end. That much-bigger question is much harder to evaluate". And in the Guardian: "In late 2015 the British eavesdropping agency, GCHQ, was carrying out standard "collection" against ... known Kremlin operatives .... Nothing unusual here – except that the Russians were talking to people associated with Trump. The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern. They continued through the first half of 2016. The intelligence was handed to the US as part of a routine sharing of information". IMO, RS justify the qualifier. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about the word/words severe and severely, as they could be puffery words. The two uses are including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns and In October, Trump was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for three days with a severe case of COVID-19. So yes, totally appropriate uses of negative words. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also needs to tell Trump to stop using negative terms, such as declaring a national emergency on the border and a national energy emergency, the two instances of "emergency" (plus several cited sources and related articles) flagged by the AI as negative. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to not commit felonies or be subject to assassination attempts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to whitewash this article. It won't happen. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onyxqk, did the "sentiment analysis tool", i.e., AI, read the sources or did it "analyze" what people posted online somewhere? That's some comprehensive list. Have you even looked at it? All it's missing is "and" and "the". I'd be interested to know what your tool would suggest as a neutral replacement for, e.g., "criminal" and "complaint" in "criminal complaint". Off-topic in this discussion, but did AI also write the text about the One Big Bad Bill that you added here and reinserted here, incorporating very little feedback from the Talk page (merely adding "removing clean energy credits" and "and SNAP") and keeping the immensely meaningful and important info that Trump signed the bill on Independence Day. Can't you just see and hear the fighter jets and B2 Spirit stealth bombers (still not invisible to the naked eye, I noticed) flying overhead? Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI did not write the text of the OBBB edit; that and some of the other remarks related to that edit do not seem constructive. The sentiment analysis tool is a Python script that takes articles from the Wikipedia API and runs a basic sentiment analysis algorithm on them. Obviously a tool like this is limited and contains many cases where "negative" words are valid, but there are similar metrics on the talk page (e.g. tracking lead size, tracking article size), and the reason for posting was to stimulate discussion and see if there are cases where sentences can be made more tonally disinterested per WP:NPOV. I think it's likely there are at least one or two cases in the article where that is the case, but if there is no consensus achieved for particular edits, no changes will be made. Onyxqk (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of programming languages is limited. Did someone define all those words listed above as negative or potentially negative in the script? "No" seems innocuous to me, 86 — may be considered "negative" in the context of s.o. being 86ed but not in "86 judges" and footnote [86], and "187" (also a footnote) I don't get at all. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment analysis algorithm used was this one; it divides words into "positive", "neutral", or "negative". I did not make the sentiment analysis algorithm itself and am not sure what the full list of words is in each category, but since it was a general tool and not designed specifically for politics or Wikipedia articles I figured it would be good to feed the article into a generic tool and get a rough approximation. I did cross-check with other articles to make sure it wasn't just saying every article was negative. I agree "86" and "no" do not really make sense; there are other cases where it also doesn't apply based on context (e.g. it flagged "miss", but that is in reference to Miss Universe).

It looks like a few edits have been made to clarify wording etc based on this, which was the goal.

I think two other edits that could make sense are changing "bitter debate" to "intense debate" and changing "slashing" in "Slashing the government's ability to address public corruption" to "Impacting" or "reducing" or some other word. It is the only use of "slashing" in the article and seems tonally different (e.g. the article refers to "rolling back" regulations rather than "slashing regulations"). Onyxqk (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that the article was analyzed based on the Vader sentiment lexicon ("sensitive [sic] both the polarity and the intensity of sentiments expressed in social media contexts, and is also generally applicable to sentiment analysis in other domains") and not MechaHitler/Grok. Slashing + bitter: the sources do use "gutted" and "slashed" (dismantle?), but I'll take a look at both tomorrow. The section is due for an update; Trump has been busy, and pardoned or dropped charges against officials misses the point when the sources say that he issued a steady stream of pardons to all but one Republican member of Congress convicted of felonies over the last 15 years. Santos isn't pleased to have been left out. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear if you mean to 'look at both tomorrow' for the purpose of a new rewrite of the Domestic affairs section of the Second presidency section. There could be a good opportunity for an improved rewrite of the section, though doing it in response to an AI analysis would seem secondary to using updated RS properly. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about two words flagged by the AI tool as "negative", the adjective "bitter" in Donald Trump#2024 presidential campaiogn, second paragraph, and the verb "slash" (slashing) in Donald Trump#Domestic policy, 2025–present, third paragraph. Neither one strikes me as inherently negative, bitter, definition 2 (marked by intensity or severity) and slash, definition 5 (reduce sharply), but I want to take a fresh look at the sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your removing information about the deficit as inherited from the Biden presidency should be included in the article since the Domestic policy section which you just mentioned makes a point of discussing it in the Big Beautifful Bill addition stating: "The bill was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the budget deficit by $3.4 trillion by 2034." It makes no sense to speak about this increase without stating its reference deficit budget amount as inherited from the Biden administration. I've brought that information in yesterday, but you reverted it. The information should be brought back into the article with the 3 citations I've added from the Joe Biden article yesterday to support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like more tangent trap to me. When A requires B for completeness or clarity, consider removing A. The amount of space devoted to this act seems excessive for this article, and it is certainly not summary level as required by consensus 37. It's actually quite detailed for this article. That level of detail may be common in presidential bios, but they are 400-page books, not single webpages. Per the web, 400 pages is 100,000 to 120,000 words compared to Wikipedia suggested maximum article length of about 15,000 words. Thus, we have to be roughly seven times more selective about what we include here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bill is a 900-page tome I haven't read, just like the members of Congress who voted for it. Excessive level of detail: those are the highlights per RS. What's the point of adding nondescript verbiage such as "signed a bill reducing taxes"? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who sez this article should have the same level of detail as RS? Not policy. Offhand, I'd be happy with three sentences about this bill, none overlong. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weeell, you're extended-confirmed. Show me your three non-overlong sentences (and be ready to rumble ). Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't write much new content, especially in political areas. I don't actually do anything here, I just tell others what to do. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one sentence already written with citations for you to use as adapted from the Joe Biden article to get things started as a clarification to the undefined 'increase' mentioned in that section: "Others such as Barron's and Forbes have stated that Biden left Trump with a national debt which grew to $36.2 trillion, along with a debt to GDP ratio of 123% and a poor deficit to GDP ratio of 6% in FY 2024.^[1][2][3]" When added to the "Beautiful Bill" section, then this addition makes clear how much Trump is adding to the discussion of national debt. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the amount of sources in this article increases the chance of bias, due to not having a full picture. 166.196.79.1 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to speak about this increase without stating its reference deficit budget amount as inherited from the Biden administration. So the sentence was meant to be a rebuttal to the OBBBA paragraph? Apples and oranges: 1) Biden inherited a deficit (and an economic depression caused by the Covid pandemic) from the first Trump administration who inherited a deficit from the Obama administration who inherited a deficit (and an economic depression caused by the 2008 financial crisis) from the Bush administration who inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. Here's a table going all the way back to 1929. 2) The usual way to deal with a deficit is to raise taxes, not to lower them. The usual way to deal with a depression is to give tax incentives to businesses and spend money on public projects such as infrastructure to restart the economy. That's all besides the point, though, which is RS saying that the tax cuts will add more than $4 trillion, to be partially offset by cutting the social safety net by more than $1 trillion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harnessing the power of AI to tell everyone that a biography about a person held in low regard by much of the world, as noted by reliable sources, has some negative-sounding language. Zaathras (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wish AI would stick to medical research and diagnosis, at which it is truly excellent, instead of writing and analyzing human text and talking kids into committing suicide. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be AI. The page faces incessant allegations of bias, and I don't think it's really arguable that that's only a result of faithfully relaying the systemic bias of the sources. Editors of both stripes clearly have a slant here, so if a more objective metric can be found, why not try it? Riposte97 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page faces incessant allegations of bias - With 4,200 watchers and 56,000 views per day, the number of bias complaints closely approaches insignificance. why not try it? - Because it would violate Wikipedia policy, for starters. Any such discussion should be at WP:VPP, and I wish you luck. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an AI tool called the VADER-Sentiment-Analysis, described on its website as a lexicon and rule-based sentiment analysis tool that is specifically attuned to sentiments expressed in social media. It is fully open-sourced under the [MIT License] (we sincerely appreciate all attributions and readily accept most contributions, but please don't hold us liable). Seems a step or two or three up from Elon Musk and Grok but still WP:USERGENERATED. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK let "analyze" some of our use of these words. "war" "and initiated a trade war with China. " Is this false? "He was exempted from the draft during the Vietnam War due to a claim of bone spurs in his heels." how is this non-neutral? Note, ignoring search hits for words with "war in them, did the OP's analysis? " and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio hit a post-World War II high." again how is this false? And at that point I stopped, as it is clear this is too vague a complaint to action. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. Trump got more significant coverage than Bill Clinton got in any four years of his post-presidency. If his first presidency has several articles and his second presidency either has several or is about to, I see this as a logical spinoff.

Support

1. As nom _pbp 00:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Define "significant". Trump undoubtedly got a lot of coverage during the four years between his first and second term, but pretty much all of it concerned the civil lawsuits and criminal investigations, indictments, and convictions, and his 2024 campaign. They're all covered in numerous related articles linked in the "Between presidencies (2021—2025(" section. Besides, I doubt that a separate Clinton post-presidency page is necessary even though he's been active worldwide with the Clinton Foundation and other intiatives for 25 years and supported his wife's two presidential runs. There are a lot of gossipy details that don't belong in an encyclopedia and, of course, the exact same unverified innuendo about Clinton's relationship with Epstein that I cleaned up at Bill Clinton in March — I just copied that version into Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well covered in existing articles. Oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to make sense to follow the Grover Cleveland example and keep it in the main article. The "Legal issues" subsection there could be shortened. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring into discussion the following part of the lead:

Trump is the central figure of Trumpism, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party.

There is little indication as to what Trumpism actually is unless readers hover over or click the link. Extensive discussion in December 2024 (as listed under Current consensus 68) led to avoiding indicators mainly about describing it under "populism", "nationalism", etc. What I propose to replace the current sentence is similar to what is seen at the Republican Party article, for example:

Since 2016, his leadership style and political agenda—often referred to as Trumpism—reshaped the Republican Party's identity.

Thoughts? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support That makes sense. "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism" sounds almost tautological (X is the central figure of Xism). The proposed replacement sounds better. Onyxqk (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that reads much better. Riposte97 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given by you and Onyxqk. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support — that makes sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would supersede or cancel current consensus item 68. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it necessarily need to interact with 68? I’m not sure anything is being expanded upon. Riposte97 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not. Necessarily. I'll leave that to you. And I belatedly see that it was already mentioned in the OP anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an expansion. According to the RfC that resulted in #68, the then-current wording Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement isn't supposed to be expanded. It's since been shortened to Trump is the central figure of Trumpism which is fine. The second clause, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party, is a separate matter. "Since 2016" and "leadership style and political agenda" are expansions; "since 2016" is redundant, "leadership style and political agenda" isn't supported by the body which says that Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. IMO, the expansion and combining the two clauses requires an RfC. Is it worth it? I don't see anything wrong with the current text. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC). Clarification: which is fine refers to the length of the material, not the meaning. I've now reverted to the "brief mention" per #68. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reshaped the Republican Party's identity is also not supported by the body which says:

Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Do you have a position on the new text? If it has enough support (and it seems to) I don't think we need to waste editor time with an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides the objections I've already stated above, and besides objecting to throwing the consensus process established on this page out the window? This page isn't about the Republican Party and it's former or present identity. Additionally, but outside the scope of this bio, do the sources support the claim that it's Trump's "leadership style and political agenda", rather than his intimidation tactics, i.e., sicking the MAGA hordes by tweet on Republicans believed to not be toeing the Trump line 100%, that have turned the GOP into a North Korea-style "hail to the Dear Leader" chorus? I don't think the proposed text is an improvement over the consensus #68 version, Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The points you raised above were purely procedural. Regarding the one point of substance you have now raised, it seems to me that these 'intimidation tactics' are simply part of his leadership style. Riposte97 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s worth changing from the tautological “X is the central figure of Xism”. For comparison, Wikipedia pages of other political figures with ideologies named after them are useful. Instead of “Peron is the central figure of Peronism”, “Stalin is the central figure of Stalinism”, “Mao is the central figure of Maoism”, “Lenin is the central figure of Leninism”, those pages have

“Perón's ideas, policies and movement are known as Peronism, which continues to be one of the major forces in Argentine politics.”

“Stalin codified the party's official interpretation of Marxism as Marxism–Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he created is known as Stalinism.”

“His theories, which he advocated as a Chinese adaptation of Marxism–Leninism, are known as Maoism.”

“Ideologically a Marxist, his developments to the ideology are called Leninism.” Onyxqk (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the consensus #68 version (Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement). Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another editor just went through this on the MAGA page and the Trumpism page; what seems clear is that Trump himself uses 'MAGA' a great deal in self-referencing his programs, while he seems rarely to use "Trumpism" in practice. He wears the 'MAGA' labeled cap but not a 'Trumpism' cap. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the reference to the two pages. Trump and his hat are not reliable sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have already spoken about the ideological difference between the terms; 'Trumpism' is an ascription placed upon Trump by others, whereas "MAGA" is Trump's reference to his movement. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to have shifted to approval of the new wording. I therefore intend to make the change in 24 hours unless anyone wants to pipe up. Space4Time3Continuum2x do you have a non-procedural objection to the text? Riposte97 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An ultimatum - lovely. And apparently none of my arguments are worth a reply, except with Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy which is a tad odd since I haven't cited any WP policies or guidelines, aside from mentioning that the proposed lead text isn't supported by the body and the sources cited there. I.e., it fails verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources WP:5P2. Well, let's make this official then -> !vote below. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Riposte97. I'm also not seeing anything that resembles an ultimatum; there appear to be 4 supports posted for this change and Riposte97 has provided adequate, and politely stated, notice of the 4 supports for this change to go forward. Support for Riposte97 to do this edit with the 4 supporting editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is added, it should say have reshaped, not just reshaped. The present perfect tense should be used with "since", not the past tense.[2] Malerisch (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support replacing the current text in paragraph 6 of the lead:

Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party.

with

Since 2016, his leadership style and political agenda—often referred to as Trumpism—reshaped the Republican Party's identity.

See above discussion for the arguments for and against the proposal. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a waste of editors' time. Consensus can be clearly determined by reading the discussion above. Per ErnestKrause, I will proceed with the change later today. Riposte97 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural. This appears to be a duplication of the same request for opinions which you have just done here. It looks like you are displeased that 4 editors are supporting the viewpoint opposing you. Also you appear to already know that Wikipedia generally collects opinions and viewpoints, and not "Votes". Procedurally, it looks like this subsection should be removed as not following Wikipedia policy and procedures. Requesting a duplicate survey of opinions is procedurally un-needed. There are 4 editors who have already stated their viewpoints on this same question. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!votes are non-votes. We're discussing the lead. Two days and six editors involved (plus Mandruss) is pretty paltry, both in terms of time and participation. Also, one editor supported the proposal because the then-version sounds almost tautological (X is the central figure of Xism). That's no longer the case because I reverted it to the consensus #68 version Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement, a consensus I wasn't involved in. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Votes" refers to positions without accompanying arguments. I lack the energy to look and see how many participants voted and how many !voted. Votes should be excluded. We have little choice: We either accept the numbers of !votes and call that consensus, or we seek uninvolved closure. I don't think two days and six editors is paltry for such a minor issue. There is nothing politically controversial here; it's just about how much detail we should include in the lead. Just make sure lead follows body. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure lead follows body. Sigh. I tried. Well, hope springs eternal, so once more with feeling. The body texts the two clauses of Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party summarize:

• Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric says Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism and then describes the politics and rhetoric as right-wing populist, authoritarian, mainstreaming far-right ideas and organizations, and his base as having been compared to a cult of personality. The proposed text says that Trumpism is Trump's leadership style and political agenda.
• Donald Trump#Between presidencies (2021–2025) says Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss. ... Much of his focus was on party governance and installing in key posts officials loyal to him. The proposed text says that his leadership style and political agenda reshaped the Republican Party. What do domination, modern party boss, and installing his acolytes in key posts have to do with leadership style and political agenda reshaping the party? Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural. You have already opened this thread for the purpose of discussing Item #68 in your opening paragraph above, and editors have responded directly 4 times that they prefer to alter the wording. Now, this duplicate survey appears to be a duplication of a discussion which did not go in the direction which you may have preferred. I'm still supporting Riposte97 going ahead with his edit in the 24 hour period he mentioned above. If you want to discuss MAGA/Trumpism at greater length, since this subject has come up in two separate threads in the last weeks on this Talk page, then just open a new discussion about current opinions about MAGA/Trumpism. Reduplicating a survey of opinions which you have just requested and received looks procedurally out of place. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

responded directly 4 times - I posted my first comment in the discussion many hours later than the first four responders. I don't know whether Maxeto0910 and Jack Upland have seen my argument that the proposed text does not accurately reflect the body. I don't know whether the revert to the consensus version has taken care of Onyxqk's criticism. Riposte's position appears to be that the proposal reads much better} and that my non-procedural objections are procedural. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given Trump's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, I believe his Wiki should be placed in Category: Jeffrey Epstein. Alan Dershowitz was placed in this category for his connections to Epstein, so there is precedent for my request. NesserWiki (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was never part of Epstein's legal team. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Donald has never worked as a lawyer or a paralegal. He has not served in any law firm. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First off, I would like to commend the editors of this article for the well-written and brutally honest article—or, in Wikipedia language, it is written from a neutral point of view with respect to reliable sources.

There is, however, one aspect of this article that I didn't understand by reading it: Why did Trump win the 2024 presidential election? There is a short explanation in the 2024 presidential election section: His victory in 2024 was part of a global backlash against incumbent parties,^[1][2] in part due to the 2021–2023 inflation surge.^[3][4]

Though, this seems like an inadequate explanation given that Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks^[5][6] to an extent unprecedented in American politics, attempted self-coup, is ranked as one of the worst presidents in American history, and everything else in this article before November 2024 that would make one expect another outcome of the election.

To make this article more understandable I suggest expanding upon the reasons for Trump's 2024 victory.

I searched on the web and found one peer-reviewed paper^[7] about the subject that states the following.

Donald Trump's return to the White House resulted primarily from the unwavering support from the majority of ordinary Republicans who refused to acknowledge any serious wrongdoing on his part and who thus assured his nomination, and from the willingness of swing voters in the general election who were sufficiently unhappy with the economy and illegal immigration to overlook Trump's character and transgressions for the promise of better economic times and tighter borders.

Thus, I propose expanding the last paragraph in the 2024 presidential election (the suggested edit is bold here for visibility — it should not be bold in the article).

Trump won the election in November 2024 with 312 electoral votes to incumbent vice president Kamala Harris's 226.^[8] He also won the popular vote with 49.8% to Harris's 48.3%.^[9] His victory in 2024 was part of a global backlash against incumbent parties,^[1][10] in part due to the 2021–2023 inflation surge.^[3][11] Promises of better economic times and tighter borders made swing voters who were sufficiently unhappy with the economy and illegal immigration willing to overlook Trump's character and transgressions.^[12] Several outlets described his reelection as an extraordinary comeback.^[13][14]

Your thoughts about the question, the subject in general, and the proposed changes to the article are welcome.

Also, I'm a new and inexperienced editor. Please let me know if anything is procedurally wrong with my comment. Arimetat (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think it is simplistic. Not your fault as anything that will fit in a WP article would be too simplistic. There are several major reasons that come to mind that I would not state even on a TP. I think we should wait a few years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just boldly removed the sentence His victory in 2024 was part of a global backlash against incumbent parties, in part due to the 2021–2023 inflation surge as too simplistic, and we shouldn't have stated that in WP voice. There are other "parts" that have been mentioned as likely reasons for Trump's win, immigration, borders, DEI/wokeness, female opponent, etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted pending agreement on a replacement.

Arimetat, I think your proposed text is an improvement. Should we also say something about the culture war? Sources suggest an anti-Woke backlash. Riposte97 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proposed text is an improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as long as it is verifiable and follows the copyright policy and other important Wikipedia policies. In general, I think readers with limited pre-knowledge about Trump and American politics would benifit from a comprehensive, more detailed and less simplistic description about the underlying reasons for his victory in 2024. Arimetat (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 United States presidential election Wikipedia page says in the lead “Analysts attributed the outcome to the 2021–2023 inflation surge, a global anti-incumbent wave, the unpopularity of the Biden administration, and Trump's gains with the working class”. That does not necessarily mean this article needs to include that explanation, but that is what that article includes if that would be useful as a comparison point. Onyxqk (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since U.S. elections tend to be close, any of a number of things could have swung it. The more interesting question is why he ever became a viable candidate. TFD (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arimetat, I agree with O3000's comment. I also think your proposed text may violate WP:COPYRIGHT rules. It's almost word for word the second clause of the excerpt from the paper's abstract, with the word order switched around and "the willingness of swing voters" changed to "made swing voters ... willing to". Excerpt:

[Trump's return to the White House resulted primarily from ...] the willingness of swing voters in the general election who were sufficiently unhappy with the economy and illegal immigration to overlook Trump's character and transgressions for the promise of better economic times and tighter borders.

Your text:

Promises of better economic times and tighter borders made swing voters who were sufficiently unhappy with the economy and illegal immigration willing to overlook Trump's character and transgressions.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Sorry, I focused on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and forgot about Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Arimetat (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus is based, in part, on the claim that "[the Jan 6 pardons have] received little news coverage following the week of the pardons". However, there is reason to doubt this: there are 31,300 articles on this topic on Google News starting Jan 31 onwards. Comparatively, there are 19,600 articles on "intimidation of political opponents or civil society", another topic in the lead, in this same time period. Therefore, should this consensus be revisited? See also. Benhatsor (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general the lede reflects the content as included in the main body of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys this is getting a little bit crazy.

Epstein and Trump have been together in the news nonstop for like what two weeks now? It's causing a rift in the MAGA movement and is objectively a pretty big deal.

Yet this article seems to have been completely scrubbed of any mention of ol Jeffy Epstein.

Whats up with that? Hard to say that Epstein isn't relevant to Trump at this point. The media coverage coverage and the schism in the movement alone justify a mention.

Or are we going to list everything going on in his presidency in fairly granular detail while completely omitting what has been a pretty major news story with some staying power?

Maybe it's not appropriate but I suspect some folks who are involved with the content on this page have an agenda to keep any mention of Epstein off this page.

If so that is shameful! I'd not then I apologize :) Necrambo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, if this were any other PERSON let alone PRESIDENT, it wouldnt even be a question to include it. Disgusting. JemT2000 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Don't do that again. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've raised this point several times, going as far as to bring it to a community discussion, but every time the discussion just peters out without a definitive conclusion. The fact that Epstein isn't mentioned at all in this article, despite the fact that he is extensively covered in articles about people who arguably had less substantial dealings with him than Trump, remains a galling double standard.

To be frank, the reluctance of admins to allow mentions of Epstein in this article seems to me like an overcorrection against previous accusations that the article or Wikipedia in general carries an anti-Trump bias. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this discussion is whether this article should mention the Epstein thing. Why it currently omits that is irrelevant. Avoid commenting about editors' motives. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too am baffled by the unexplained absence of any mention of the Epstein scandal on the page. While it is not currently confirmed whether Trump's name appears on the client list or not, it IS relevant to mention that he has declared the Epstein list to be a hoax on multiple occasions, and has been accused by his former "colleague" Elon of appearing on it. One of the things he campaigned on during his third run was releasing the Epstein files. All of this is relevant information, and all of it has been reported on by major news networks, so there is zero excuse for none of it to be mentioned on here. Alex the weeb (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per arguments to date, I support up to three average-length sentences in the body. Including a link to the appropriate subarticle providing more detail. I oppose anything in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issues maybe how to represent it, as wp:blp applies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it (OR alerts), there are two versions. There was a list, and Trump is now lying. Or there was never a list, and Trump was lying. The problem is, we cannot know which of those is true. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to say which of those is true. We merely summarize the controversy per RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which may well end up being way too big for what is an overview of what is (in reality) a recent controversy (well not his links to Epstein, but the controversy surrounding those links). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said I support up to three average-length sentences. If that's not enough, I support nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly WP:DUE to say something in this article about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, especially in light of the last week or two's developments. I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's article has a three-paragraph subsection on Epstein? Obviously we don't OTHERSTUFF things into existence here, but it is striking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: So would you go so far as to support a three-sentence limit? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we would limit ourselves to three sentences given the breadth of information out there, or why you're pushing for it while acknowledging you lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it). I say we draft some text here and see where consensus is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal poke, but I don't need knowledge of the subject matter to oppose overdetail in this article. We have way too much of that already, we don't need more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it as a "poke", but just a way of pointing out that this may need more detail than you might want. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If so, my support changes to oppose. I haven't seen many issues that couldn't be summarized/overviewed in three sentences, and I doubt this is one of them. Hell, I could summarize World War II in three sentences if I put my mind to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As good at concision as you may be, that'd be impossible. Back to this topic, Epstein's personal life section has paragraphs about Trump. It's probably UNDUE even for Epstein's bio. I oppose setting a limit on Epstein text for this article at this point because we don't know how far it all will go in the coming weeks, and we should see proposed text before supporting or opposing. But we can start with a brief paragraph of three-or-so sentences. If I have the time and energy, I may try to draft it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that'd be impossible. Back to this topic - This is not off-topic. I'd say it's an important part of the question.

World War II (1939–1945) was an armed conflict between Nazi Germany, Japan, and their allies (the Axis Powers), and England, the United States, and their allies (the Allied Powers). It arose from Germany's and Japan's desires for expansion, and it saw the first and only use of atomic bombs in war. The Allied Powers were ultimately victorious, resulting in the division of Germany into two states until 1990.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this has had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless you are trying to say "this is what we say about the impact of WW2, so why not mention this here", what were you trying to say by bringing up WW2? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm illustrating that even something as large as WWII can be summarized in three sentences, which Muboshgu says is impossible. If it's possible for WWII, it's certainly possible for Trump-Epstein. The idea that a summary would be useless in this article without details X, Y, and Z is an illusion. This article should be "Here's the general outline of the issue. Click for details." Many readers will choose not to click. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then write it, and present it for critique. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate repeating myself: I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. I generally subscribe to "If you want it done right, do it yourself", but I'm regrettably inadequate to this particular task. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves a lot of important details out, but like I said summarizing WWII is off topic here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. In this article, per current consensus item 37, it's supposed to leave a lot of important details out. Like many similar issues, editors here make two unproven assumptions:

• Most readers will be interested in the details.
• Most readers won't follow a link to a subarticle. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This shows it’s possible to summarise ww2(tho it was the Uk as a whole that was in the conflict not just England and the Holocaust should probably be mentioned in any summary.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. In Clinton's case, there was a whole conspiracy story to contend with. When I looked at the section in March, I thought about deleting all of it because it was one big NPOV violation. I thought better of it because it would probably have all been reinserted. It's now a section about what actually happened, mentioning some of the unverified reports. Somehow Trump escaped that treatment, despite e.g. the video of Epstein and him ogling the dancing cheerleaders at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump quote ("I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life") in the fawning New York magazine article in 2002. Meaning, anything we could have written would have been a trivial detail. That's changing now with additional details (Trump's bawdy birthday letter, the release/non-release/possible partial release of the "Epstein files", the reaction of the MAGA mob, and Trump's reaction to the reaction). It's a developing story, 'though, so WP:NOTNEWS applies. There's no rush. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think it's important to consider the fact that although Epstein is not mentioned by name in this article, Donald Trump#Racial and gender views does include the following: "At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations."

Meanwhile, we also have a subarticle, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations which has a whole section on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which makes it clear that at least some of the women publicly accusing him of sexual misconduct are doing so in the context of his relationship to Epstein.

The current structure of our multiple articles about Donald Trump make it difficult for readers to navigate and find the information they may be looking for. However if we try to jam everything into this article it will be unwieldy. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. The sexual misconduct article is linked from the section on racial and gender views; but not as prominently as Racial views of Donald Trump which is listed as the main article. Meanwhile Racial views of Donald Trump does not mention anything about the sexual abuse allegations or Epstein (as it shouldn't - it would be off topic there). I don't think the sexual assault allegations or his relationship with Epstein are "views" so I think that is misplaced in that section of this article.

My proposal would be to split Donald Trump#Racial and gender views into two sections; one on racial views, and one on gender and sexuality. I will note that that section on racial and gender views does not discuss his views regarding LGBT topics, which I think are appropriately classed as "gender views" (especially his views on Trans people which have evolved from accepting during the 2016 campaign to openly transphobic now). I think it would be appropriate to have a section roughly equivelent in length to what is left of the current racial and gender views section that breaks out the stuff about his views on women and the sexual assault alegations and discusses it (perhaps with a more explicit mention of Epstein) while also incorporating information on his views on LGBTQ issues. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

section "Public image", subsections "Racial views" and "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct". Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if no one can be arsed, can we close this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can be arsed, just not at this exact moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been arsed since I was a boy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the False or misleading statements by Donald Trump article linked in the last paragraph of the lead? I know about MOS:OVERLINK, but I doubt that's the reason here since said paragraph has by far the lowest density of links of any paragraph in the lead. Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now linked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I approve this edit. Let's see how long it'll survive. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]