Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus

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 {{para|title}} parameters, which are left unchanged from the sources.

1. Use American English, per the {{tlx|Use American English}} template.
2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{tlx|Use mdy dates}} template.
3. To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example {{code|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 {{code|$10 billion}}.
5. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
6. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".

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

1. {{para|work}} and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
2. Generally, {{para|work}} and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code {{para|work|The New York Times}}, not {{para|work|New York Times}}. Code {{para|work|Los Angeles Times}}, not {{para|work|The Los Angeles Times}}.
3. There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
4. When the article title includes a parenthetical, such as in Time (magazine), pipe the link to drop the parenthetical: {{para|magazine|Time}}. Otherwise, there is never a good reason to pipe this link.
5. Code {{para|last}} and {{para|first}} for credited authors, not {{para|author}}.
6. Code {{para|author-link}} when an author has a Wikipedia article. Place this immediately after the {{para|last}} and {{para|first}} parameters for that author. {{para|last1|Baker}}{{para|first1|Peter}}{{para|author-link1|Peter Baker (journalist)}}{{para|last2|Freedman}}{{para|first2|Dylan}}.
7. In {{para|title}} parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP Fact Check:", not "AP FACT CHECK:".
8. Per current consensus item 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are {{para|url-status}}, {{para|archive-url}}, and {{para|archive-date}}.
9. Omit {{para|language}} for English-language sources.
10. Omit {{para|publisher}} for news sources.
11. Omit {{para|location}} for news sources.
12. Omit {{para|issn}} for news sources.
13. Code a space before the pipe character for each parameter. For example, code: {{code||date=April 12, 2025 |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)}}—not: {{code||date=April 12, 2025|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)}}. This provides the following benefits for the edit window and diffs:
14. Improved readability.
15. Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
16. 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:
17. Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
18. For web-based news sources, the choice between {{para|work}}, {{para|newspaper}}, and {{para|website}} is unimportant.
19. The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.
20. 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.{{efn|This number is (PEIS limit minus PEIS) divided by 2000. A typical citation in this article contributes about 2,000 bytes to the article's PEIS. While all other template transclusions also contribute to PEIS, they are far fewer in number and their contributions vary widely.{{pb}}This number is a very rough but useful approximation. If it falls below about 40, it's time to start talking about ways to reduce the article's PEIS. (Trimming cited body content is only one of the ways; for another example, we can remove dispensable navboxes at the bottom of the article.) This is more meaningful to editors than showing the PEIS or the number of additional bytes before exceeding the PEIS limit.}} Click [show] to see weeklies.

{{cot|{{small|Note}}}}

{{notelist-talk}}

{{cob}}

It strikes me that Wikipedia editors know very little about each other at a personal level. We should and usually do keep personal information to ourselves when divulging it would present a privacy issue. I think that caution can be taken too far for the project's good.

It also strikes me that the trust level would increase if we knew something personal about each other; it would have a humanizing effect and we would see each other more as people than as words on our screens. We all form mental images of each other, and I suspect they're usually wrong. We might even discover some commonality that we didn't know existed.{{pb}}How about lines of work?{{pb}}In my opinion, this thread does not violate WP:NOTFORUM because its intent is to ultimately improve this article, albeit indirectly and in subtle ways. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Any specific reason for the low trust level? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC) (human)

::{{small|Besides the one I already mentioned? It's not like trust is the default condition, especially these days. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• Retired software developer. I designed and wrote system software for IBM mainframes. Mostly pre-internet. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Clinical pharmacy - if that wasn't clear from the history of articles I've improved/created on my userpage already :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{small|I once knew a "clinical pharmacist". He's on parole now. ;) {{small|(That one's probably a bit stale for a clinical pharmacist.)}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}
• All irrelevant see wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is about trust, not what we say. WP:AGF doesn't usually make us trust, it just tries to regulate what we say. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Trust about what, for example, I am in fact lord president of Galifray, I have said it, it must be true. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. Stgaryavé (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't do anything. I have schizophrenia. Hope you have a good day……… but I can't maintain reality :( 2600:4040:AEBA:C200:9988:B38D:C0:47D3 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I admire the intent behind this, but... with doxxing being a thing, and privacy concerns being bigger than ever, I'd expect people to want to remain or retain some level of anonymity. That being said, I've held many hats over the years, sales, software developer/engineer, graphic designer, web developer, caregiver, and more. WP:AGF will have to do the rest. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Locke Cole}} Thanks for the comment and good to see you again. I'm pinging you since it's been a couple of days since your comment.{{pb}}After my reveal above, I'm now known to be in a pool of individuals numbering probably in four digits (retired developers of system software for IBM mainframes). That's a risk I'm prepared to take in return for the benefit. Retail sales clerk: seven digits in the U.S. alone (I looked it up).{{pb}}If an editor won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2004, I would suggest they not reveal that here. By doing so, they would self-doxx as Elfriede Jelinek. Don't do it, Elfriede, it's not worth it!! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2063571590}}

{{rfc|bio|lang|rfcid=62E61C4}}

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)

:{{ping|HappyWanderer15|Space4TCatHerder|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)

:{{ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}Emiya1980 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Separate paragraphs. For comparison, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1291684419 this] was the article before paragraph 3 was split. The new paragraph break marks a distinct change in the nature of the content.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}{{small|(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.{{pb}}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.)}}{{pb}}You may find this informative: Talk:Donald Trump#Tracking lead size.{{pb}}{{small|In this comment, not including this paragraph and the preceding paragraph, the average paragraph length is 66 words, and the longest paragraph is 105 words.}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Separate paragraphs i.e., keep separate (keep the status quo, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1292223645). The flow is more natural with the current separation of text into paragraphs than it would be if paragraphs 3 and 4 were joined. Having them separate also better reflects the structure of the article. See WP:CREATELEAD: {{tqq|The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.}} No comment on "140 words". —Alalch E. 23:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• No strong opinion, but keep content Whether or not paragraphs 3 and 4 are combined, my personal opinion is that all of the content in both is relevant to summarizing the body of the article. I don't think it matters very much whether the paragraphs are separated or combined. There are readability arguments from both perspectives that will depend on personal preference, but for what it's worth, plenty of articles have longer paragraphs than 3-4 combined would be in the case of this article, and there is little controversy about it. I think this may be an example of wikipedians splitting hairs on something that 98% of readers don't care about. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This RfC appears to be part of the recent discussion at WP:Lede about the apparent conflict between lede size on the one hand, and number of paragraphs in the lede on the other hand. Someone there pointed out that lede length should have priority over the question of how many paragraphs there should be in the lede under differing circumstances. Therefor the Lede policy of several years has recently been reversed giving preference to Lede length as the more or less decisive issue. Mandruss and others have been a part of that discussion. The question which was not discussed there was why the context should be interpreted as requiring only short paragraphs of 2-3 sentences in length, rather that fully developed paragraphs which are comprehensive in their length and content. Pinging WhatamIdoing in case he might elaborate on any of this editing at WP:Lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I can live with either version. Slight preference for a single paragraph dealing with the first term, including Trump's attempt to overturn the election and the two impeachments (even though the second one took place shortly after he left office). I just moved the sentence about scholars and historians ranking him into the last paragraph with the general remarks. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• To complicate matters, paras 4 and 5 were boldly combined in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1293002157 this edit]. Now, combining paras 3 and 4 would create a 200-word paragraph, not a 159-word paragraph. Unless the bold edit is reverted, my normal-weight "separate paragraphs" !vote now becomes a strong !vote, if that makes any difference. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1293080589 restored] the pre-split version, i.e., third paragraph on first presidency events including the insurrection (145 words), fourth paragraph on events between terms (criminal and civil cases (66 words). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I'm trying to assume good faith but having a hard time with {{u|ArmstadtHuber}}'s edits copying three discussions archived at the beginning of April, then adding one sentence each to two of them:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1292190423 Copied three archived discussions] from archive 195 (Can Trump's Truth Social posts be used as reliable sources?) and archive 196) (Consensus building: Trump's foreign policy on Croatia and NVDA stock)
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1292190901 Adding the sentence] {{tq|Please see WP:NYPOST}}. This appears to be a response to "Can Trump's Truth Social posts be used as reliable sources?", which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1292340171&oldid=1292339607 archived to archive 197 by the bot today], but was added to the long "Consensus building" discussion exclusively involving a number of new accounts.
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1292191659&oldid=1292190901 Adding the sentence] "{{tq|Nvidia's stock seems to be heading down yet again}}"

I think the three copies (one in archive 197, two on this Talk page) should be deleted. Thoughts? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Insufficient reason to restore from archive. They also failed to remove the restored threads from the archive, which would ultimately result in multiple archived versions of the same discussions. That indicates a competence issue in the area of archive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I deleted the duplicate of Can Trump's Truth Social posts be used as reliable sources? from archive 197 yesterday and the two other copies from this page just now. Three accounts created yesterday and today added edits and started a new discussion about slow loading — early April déjà vu. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Another brand new single-purpose account [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1293150480&oldid=1293136513 copied two expired discussions] archived at the beginning of April, no reason given. I deleted them again. Do we need admin involvement? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Elephino. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

About this sentence:

:"After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history."

Because most of the scholarly rankings do not rank presidents twice if they serve multiple terms (Grover Cleveland was only ranked once), we should remove this sentence until the end of his second term. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:His first-term ranking is still historically significant and should not be removed. Stgaryavé 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you think I'm disputing the legitimacy of Trump's ranking(s), I'm not. We should most certainly mention his historically low approval ratings for his first term and second term (so far) but making a claim about his ranking among the U.S. presidents would not be appropriate until his second term has ended. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That the subject gained a second term does not change the reality of where he ranked after the first one. Zaathras (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Grover Cleveland's two nonconsecutive terms were both in the past when the survey was done. Consensus #54 clearly says "after [Trump's] first term"; we'll change it if and when another survey is done after his second term. Recent discussions here and here. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::We should probably specify that the said ranking(s) apply solely to Trump's first term (for now) MilaKuliž (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe changing {{tqb|After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history.}}

:::to

:::{{tqb|Scholars and historians have ranked Trump's first term as one of the worst presidencies in American history.}}

:::would help remove ambiguity. MilaKuliž (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That would work, but then it might seem as if the rankings were term-based instead of president based. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if anyone else would think that though. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Most of the rankings are done by college students and professors and therefore do not capture an accurate sample of the American people. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Totally agree. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It would probably be better to use general approval ratings to see how popular Trump is with the general public. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Loading posts on this page is very slow. Why is that? BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago, you can probably find it in archive if you look. We think that the size of this page (>400,000 bytes) is a major factor, but we don't appear to be able to significantly scale it down in the near future. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe your internet? Stgaryavé2 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::In this discussion which can be found on Archive 196, we found that the lagginess of this talk page is mainly due to its size, as several users with different operating systems and search engines reported serious lag. MilaKuliž (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is an RfC pending since that discussion from last month; if some one would put in a request for 'admin help' to close the RfC based on the high daily page count for the Trump article, then I would try to support. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If this were an unusual situation for this page, that might make a little sense. As I've said before, if you think this article should receive ongoing special treatment, you should raise that at WP:AN. As indicated at the top of that RfC, uninvolved closure was requested on 13 April. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This page is loading considerably faster than it was a few days ago. MilaKuliž (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Maybe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1293155568&oldid=1293150603 this archival] of a 266K discussion has something to do with it? MilaKuliž (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, maybe. But long discussions are a way of life on this page, so there's nothing we (editors of this article) can do about it when they impact performance. We already tried WP:VPT and I don't know what, if anything, was changed as a result of that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2063908197}}

{{rfc|bio|pol|rfcid=D7CFFB4}}

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

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

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

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

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

::Note: The full text of the "less than one sentence" reads {{tq|He issued more executive orders on his first day than any other president; he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14.}} There is also a second mention in the article, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1293162866&oldid=1293155568 pointed out by BootsED]: {{tq|Counterterrorism researchers described his normalization and revisionist history of the January 6 Capitol attack, and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters, as encouraging future political violence.}} Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::Law enforcement groups and others saying that the pardons undermine the rule of law: [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/justice-department-jan-6-investigation-trump.html], [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/22/trump-january-6-pardons-police-union], [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-says-trump-jan-6-pardons-reflect-revisionist-myth-2025-01-22/], [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-pardons-rioters-disturbing-former-top-jan-6/story?id=117975874], [https://www.dw.com/en/trumps-jan-6-pardons-undermined-rule-of-law/a-71406924], [https://rollcall.com/2025/01/22/law-enforcement-groups-criticize-trump-pardons-for-jan-6/] Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Support - RS don't seem to make that much of it at this point.Riposte97 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support- The pardons do not belong in the lead, I have to agree with the sentiment that there is not enough coverage, hence the few sentences mention in the body of this article. It would seem out of place to read about the pardons in the lead, there are many other things that would take precedent to include into he lead before inclusion of the pardons.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This belongs in the lead in the context of Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 elections being one of the most historic features of his first presidency, not to mention the basis of the legal affairs (also mentioned in the lead) that he spent much of his inter-presidency involved in. It is notable that he granted one of the largest blanket pardons in U.S. history as one of his first acts in office, as presidential pardons normally happen on a smaller scale, and toward the end of a presidency as well. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Your and others' premise is that the proper focus of this article is on his presidencies. We have other articles for that, and this article already places too much emphasis on that. Readers must learn to "drill deeper" in their areas of interest, if they don't know that already. That's why we give them all those hatnote links. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal. As I mentioned in this discussion, Jan 6 pardons were not considered notable by RSs even by the 100 day mark. They may be relevant to Trump's presidencies but are hardly one of the most notable concepts about Trump himself. I believe its inclusion was the result of WP:RECENTISM as the result of writing the blurb early in the second presidency. satkara❈talk 03:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not one of WP's guidelines or policies, and it clashes with the argument that there hasn't been enough recent coverage. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This is addressed in the body of the text. Is it significant enough to be included in the lead? Arguably yes, if going by vibes only or something, but there isn’t sufficient coverage to justify its inclusion in the lead at this point. Nemov (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|vibes only or something}}? What are you referring to? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Reflection of the body and recentism are good arguments, but the pardons are significant. However this is decided, the precedent should not be long lasting. It's very possible future trump actions will push this to relative obscurity. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Corruption has been one of the most notable and widely covered aspects of the Trump administration:

1) The Trump memecoin

2) The Trump stablecoin

3) The Zelenskyy call

4) profiteering by the Trump boys

5) $400 million airplane from Qatar

6) $500 million in Vietnam

7) $10 million bribe from Egypt during campaign 1

8) tens of millions in gifts

9) $200 million taken from adelson

10) $300 million from musk

11) during the 1st term he took $160 million from foreign governments

12) memecoin dinner

13) selling access to president at mar a lago

14) campaign finance violation convicted for 91 felonies

15) trump university

16) retaliation against law firms that opposed him

17) prosecution of trumps enemies

18) pardons for sale

19) $500 million in fraud adjudicated by NYS

20) Trump U

21) taking money from crypto to drop sec investigations

22) conflicts of interest

etc

None of these are speculative. These are all documented facts which no reasonable person disputes. And this is just scratching the surface. There is plainly enough material for its own article on this topic. This is a man who has openly stolen billions of dollars, is described as the most corrupt president of all time by both the right and the left, by both his supporters and his critics. It is a scandal we have no article on this topic. this is being covered even in mainstream center-right publications like The NY Times and even far right outlets like Fox News. How much are you all being paid to run interference for Trump?

the following list is but an aperitif of the relevant sources. The true number is in the tens of thousands:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/25/us/politics/trump-money-plane-crypto.html

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/crew-is-tracking-trumps-unprecedented-corruption-again/

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/trump-cryptocurrency-scandal-corruption-billions-20250529.html

https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/icymi-warren-reads-100-acts-of-trump-corruption-into-congressional-record-to-mark-100-days-of-the-trump-administration

https://campaignlegal.org/update/trump-administration-has-opened-door-more-corruption

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/trump-golden-age-corruption/682935/

https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-executive-branch/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/trump-coronavirus-corruption/

https://www.epi.org/blog/corruption-in-plain-sight-how-elon-musk-has-benefited-from-the-first-100-days-of-the-trump-administration/

https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2022/10/06/fifteen-scholars-weigh-trump-corruption

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cost-corruption-waste-abuse-president-trumps-cabinet/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/pausing-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-enforcement-to-further-american-economic-and-national-security/

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/confronting-cost-trumps-corruption-american-families/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-political-corruption-watchdog-fired-b2697111.html

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-democracy-at-risk-as-corruption-threats-grow/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/21/trump-trickle-down-corruption-qatar-crypto

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/21/trump-trickle-down-corruption-qatar-crypto

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/21/trump-trickle-down-corruption-qatar-crypto

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/28/12904136/donald-trump-corrupt

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-qatar-emoluments-clause-constitution/tnamp/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/14/politics/corruption-justice-department-trump-new-york

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/trump-qatar-jet-plane.html

The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am unsure this warrants its own article, so much as coverage in this one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:: that’s very nice but opinions which give no reasoning for the opinion have zero value. Is this a case of WP:IDontlikeit]? Please offer reasons and policy and arguments for your idiosyncratic personal views or keep them to yourself.

:::Its called a discusion, OK you want reasons. A, this article is about him, and this content is about him. If this is such a major part of his life, it needs coverage here, not in a separate article. B, There may well be issues here around wp:blp, a list of hostile accusations (in essence accusations) are not really enough (to my mind) for an article discussing (what would be) a person's criminal activity. C, things like campaign donations are not evidance of corruption, so at least some of this is spurious. I am now out of here with a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: These people want you, the Wikipedia editors dead and in prison. They wish for your total destruction to prevent the exposure of this corruption. See here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-d-c-prosecutor-going-185144861.html. And yes, Campaign donations in exchange for political benefits are indeed corruption. But these are just a small subset of the corruption. The sources also span both admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Final Bringer of Truth (talk • contribs) 13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can create the page if you want. You don't need a consensus here. As long as it is well-sourced and follows policy I don't see an issue. There already are large section on this in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Ethics and First presidency of Donald Trump#Ethics, however. BootsED (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that this topic warrants its own article. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Obvious Support** per nomination. Perhaps the most obviously necessary proposed article in Wikipedia history. Indeed, Wikipedia’s future is at stake in this vote. Oppose votes essentially propose the end of Wikipedia. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk)

{{od}} I think the challenge you're facing is that we don't create attack articles as a method of responding to threats. There are plenty of people watching these articles who are critical of, dislike or actively work against the Trump regime in various ways. That there isn't a separate article on corruption within the government is because, at least so far, most people believe the extant articles about Trump and the Trump regime contain sufficient scope to discuss it. For example there is Second presidency of Donald Trump which likely contains most of these. If you believe that there is scope around corruption within the Trump regime that cannot be contained and if you can demonstrate that we have scope gaps that need filling or overstuffed pages that need splitting then there could be such a conversation. But we won't be doing it just because the regime threatens Wikipedia. We would do it only if it was the right choice for the objectives of the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:That was a rhetorical element meant to be persuasive. The inclusion of rhetoric doesn’t mean I didn’t supply an argument. The argument is the tsunami of coverage on corruption in the Trump administration (mind you, the sources I submitted span both Trump admins, this is not something new to the 2nd admin, it’s just been drastically increased.) The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oof! That's quite the list. As an autoconfirmed user you can create the article yourself, you don't need to seek consensus or permission here. #14 is incorrect, BTW. 91 is the number of charges he was facing at the beginning of last year. He was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (hush-money case); the other cases were dismissed without prejudice because Trump can't be prosecuted while he is president. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:It’s too difficult to create articles here even with a mountain of sources. There are too many bad faith editors whose sole raison d’etre is “I don’t like it!” who want to lean on their pointless knowledge of wikilawyering to manipulate process. Have you all not forgotten rule 1: Ignore all rules and rule 2: come armed to the teeth with references. I have not. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do think we will eventually have an article on Trump's history of fraud and corruption. But it likely won't be written until he's out of office, and probably dead, because he is so litigious. Rather like Robert Maxwell. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::And should be (if we have one) about his, not his administration's corruption,. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think both have a place. There's fractal stupid in play - like the EO demanding "gold standard science" to exclude climate models while RFK Jr. publishes an AI-written "paper" citing hallucinated studies. Any recovery from Trumpism is likely to require an effort on a par with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1293157456&oldid=1293156002 I added] the following text to the [[January 6 Capitol attack section: {{tq2|The Justice Department investigation of the riot was the "biggest and most logistically complex investigation" in its history. It had resulted in more than 1,600 convictions and indictments when Trump ended it with one of his first official acts after the inauguration for his second term.{{cite news |last=Thrush |first=Glenn |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/justice-department-jan-6-investigation-trump.html |title=Trump Crushes Justice Department’s Biggest Investigation In an Instant |work=The New York Times |date=January 20, 2025 |access-date=May 30, 2025}}}}

{{u|Mandruss}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1293157456&oldid=1293156002 reverted] with the editsum {{tq|"Overly tangential to this biography. #37"}}. So, not just of little relevance to Trump’s biography, but excessively minor relevance and, #37, no lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy? IMO, the biggest DOJ investigation ever resulting in more than 1,500 convictions and indictments and then being quashed by Trump on his first day in office in what the Guardian called one of his [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/tump-executive-orders-list most significant executive orders and actions] — that's of lasting relevance for his biography.

{{talkref}} Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The article already has a section on Jan 6; maybe Madruss has a point. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Uh, yeah, and the above highlighted sentence is what I added to its last paragraph. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293109942#January_6_Capitol_attack This is the old revision.] Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::All else aside, I don't see how you can call that summary level. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump's appointment of the unqualified Nicole McGraw to be the new ambassador to Croatia has sent shockwaves through Croatian society, as many politicians and activists believe that this is an insult to the Croatian nation and could jeopardize Croatia's generally friendly relations with the United States. I can't believe that this isn't mentioned in this article yet. VušekaZilna HKR (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:It appears to not be in the Croatia article either. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Astonishing! VušekaZilna HKR (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:There was a lengthy talk page discussion about this a while ago, I'll see if I can find it in the archive. We gathered information from several editors and it was determined that this content is (at least for the time being) overdetailed for Trump's bio page. The page about Trump's foreign policy would be the place to add this. MilaKuliž (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::For reference, here is the main discussion from Archive 196:

::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_196#Consensus_building:_Trump's_foreign_policy_on_Croatia MilaKuliž (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering the stratification of political donations to the trump campaigns, would people be amendable to adding discussion of significant donors to the campaign sections? Ie mentioning the impact of people like the adelson's, uihleins, musk, mellon, and the like? SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Fundraising and donations are already discussed in the section titled "2024 presidential election"; what do you have in mind? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:That would be overdetail for this Trump biography. There are other Trump-related articles that would better places for that level of detail, including First presidency of Donald Trump and Second presidency of Donald Trump. Neither of those articles contains the word "donor"—why should the less detailed article include more detail than the more detailed articles? I suggest you go to those articles and propose this (or perform bold edits there and see if they're accepted). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In the second presidency section, "Trump attributed societal problems to DEI and wokeness." should be changed to "Trump attributed societal problems to wokeness and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives." Many people outside the United States are unfamiliar with the DEI acronym, so linking and introducing it would help non-U.S. readers understand better. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|ArmstadtHuber}} I agree; indeed I would have had no idea what "DEI" meant if you hadn't explained it. I have made substantially the change that you suggested. Thank you. JBW (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for changing it! ArmstadtHuber (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support I had never heard of DEI until I moved to the USA. Although most European countries have passed legislation regarding race/ethnic equal opportunity, I don't believe there is a specific name for these initiatives like the USA has. MilaKuliž (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Posting the OP's proposed change here for clarity.

::Current sentence: {{tqb|Trump attributed societal problems to DEI and wokeness.}}

::Proposed change: {{tqb|Trump attributed societal problems to wokeness and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.}} MilaKuliž (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for doing that ArmstadtHuber (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Me neither. The second sentence makes more sense to me. CaemPaepus865405 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I support this proposal as well. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks ArmstadtHuber (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:@JBW - assuming you made this edit, there is a minor error here...

:Current sentence: {{tqb|Trump attributed societal problems to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. and wokeness.}}

:After copyedit: {{tqb|Trump attributed societal problems to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and wokeness.}} MilaKuliž (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would also support moving "wokeness" before "DEI" for clarity:

::{{tqb|Trump attributed societal problems to wokeness and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.}}

::Either way could work however. MilaKuliž (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think @MilaKuliž's sentence flows better, but maybe it's a matter of opinion. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's a minor detail and doesn't impact the meaning of the sentence. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe get consensus from other editors. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Odd, because I find having wokeness at the end to be clearer. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::NVM - @Mandruss just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1293460894&oldid=1293446054 fixed] the error. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please mention trump's foreign policy about Sweden, because we are not happy with it! Galavitë47 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:What specifically do you want to add? MilaKuliž (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sweden's prime minister recently denounced trump and over 80 percent of sweden citizens oppose trump! Galavitë47 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have sources for that? We don't publish information on Wikipedia without reliable sources. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Even if you do, this is likely overdetailed for Trump's bio page. Check the Trump foreign policy page or any page(s) about Sweden's foreign policy, and suggest adding the claims (with sources) if they haven't been already. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:And what reliable sources do you have to support it? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In the foriegn policy section, please include Trump's views and foreign policy regarding the Vatican, especially the former Pope Francis, the new Pope Leo, and Trump's reaction to the new pope. CaemPaepus865405 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Overdetail for this biography of Trump. Perhaps a different Trump-related article, but that is not discussed on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::How is it overdetail? The foreign policy section talks about Trump's relations with other countries, so I see no problem with adding his relations with the Vatican. CaemPaepus865405 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Whataboutism. The existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the retention or addition of other bad stuff of the same kind. Editors' energies would be better spent fixing the existing bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe it could be justified as Catholics make up a significant amount of the American populace? ✶Quxyz✶ 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:The article Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration might contain what you're looking for. MilaKuliž (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Trump is apparently unhappy about the new pope. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Most critics think that the new pope is generally conservative, but Trump is still speaking out and criticizing him. He apparently isn't conservative enough for Trump. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, check the Trump foreign policy article and suggest adding relevant information there. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::The new pope is anti abortion and homophobic so I thought Trump would like him 2603:8000:1801:6500:9965:BEFE:BF62:4ABD (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You'd be surprised. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:NOTFORUM - Please keep discussions focused on improving the article. MilaKuliž (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Have you noticed, he's unhappy about most things these days, except when they involve him getting richer and watching our country suffer. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I feel bad for you Americans. Watching your country crumble in front of your eyes, has to be painful. Paraćina (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:NOTFORUM. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's unfortunate. In the past, when the candidate I didn't vote for (e.x. George W Bush) won, I still respected him and viewed him with a generally positive attitude because at least he was doing what's best for our country. I can't do that with Trump. That guy is dangerous and is in the process of tearing this great country down. But he's too focused on money and power to notice. All he cares about is himself. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::At least we agree with that... 2603:8000:1801:6500:7C3F:BC3:8E15:245D (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Elon Musk thinks he can turn this country into a dumpster fire and get away with it. Not so fast F-Elon! 2603:8000:1801:6500:7C3F:BC3:8E15:245D (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to open a new sub-section to this article titled "Accusations and convictions of election fraud"? BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:What should be put in this section? I assume that stuff is covered elsewhere in the article. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::There's also other Trump related articles that might talk about that. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The information should be here considering it effects Trump personally. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:The 2020 presidential election section already discusses election fraud - do we really need a separate subsection for it? MilaKuliž (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::It doesn't seem like there's enough information about election fraud currently in this article to make a whole new section about it. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ditto. @BandanrIkhBuhsher, what's the reasoning for your suggestion? MilaKuliž (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, for starters, Trump's alleged election fraud may have played a role in his 2024 presidential election victory, if some of the alleged fraud claims are true. I looked in the section about is 2024 presidential campaign and there is no mention of allegations of election fraud by Trump staffers or supporters. There is also no mention of Russian interference (both proven and alleged) in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Considering these events would influence Trump's political career and have/could have had the ability to shape U.S. politics, they should be given a closer look in this article. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay, we would need reliable sources to add this information to the article. Do you have any? AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Since this issue has reared its ugly head more than once in recent days, let's see if we can establish a new process consensus. Proposed:{{tq2|If a consensus was formed among ten or more editors, it may be revisited only if (1) significant new arguments are presented, or (2) the external (to Wikipedia) situation has changed significantly.}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is consistent with WP:CCC. It's essentially just a firmed-up version of CCC's first sentence, and that firmness is needed. Nothing in WP policy prohibits this local consensus; there is no community consensus that we can't establish it.{{pb}}If this passes, I will devise some way to indicate in each consensus item whether it clears the ten-editor bar. Then I'll update the 71 consensus items. The things I do for you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• I could potentially support criteria, but I don't think it should be solely based on the prior consensus (size, arguments, or otherwise). In other words, not whether there's "significant" new arguments or "significant" change. For one, who gets to decide what's "significant" or not - do we need a discussion and consensus that it's "significant" before another discussion about the proposed issue? That, to me, seems like a backward step - but the only alternative would be allowing one or two editors to shut down a proposal even if there may be a good reason to change it, just because it isn't subjectively "significant" enough of a new argument/change in the situation in their opinion. I would support something along the lines of {{tq|To open a new RfC on a current consensus item, the proposed discussion should be fleshed out between editors ahead of time. If after this discussion at least net 5 editors (meaning 5 more people supporting an RfC than opposing one) have agreed that a new RfC is warranted, then a new RfC can be planned and/or opened.}} This is a concrete criteria that can be met, while allowing editors to support a new RfC if there is significant new arguments or information, or even if the proposal is just better even if the arguments haven't changed necessarily. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I get your point about "significant", but this consensus would be impotent without it (and we don't need any more impotent consensi). The flip side is that any editor could claim that his trivial little distinction represents a new argument or a change in the external situation. Bang, they pass the criteria, no questions asked. Most teenagers could handle that.{{pb}}I think the disagreements about "significant" would be fewer than you are predicting. For those few, yes, we have to reach some kind of consensus about that first. It doesn't need to be a big thing, a 4–2 consensus would suffice. There is no deadline, and the wheels of Wikipedia... well you know. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's why I settled on "net 5". If 5 people agree that a new discussion/RfC is warranted based on a proposal, with no dissents, then there would seem to be significant agreement. Even if 10 editors opposed a new discussion and 15 supported one, that would suggest that consensus may have changed, or at least that 15 editors agree that it may have changed to the point of warranting a new RfC. Maybe net 5 is too many, but I definitely think a quick "real vote" (more like a straw poll) of "should this be a full discussion" is going to be needed. So it may as well just be based on those editors' individual views of the situation - we don't have to prescribe the criteria for them to want a new discussion.{{pb}}Maybe one of them thinks that the original discussion was not well handled (had poor arguments on both sides, people derailing it, or otherwise), while 2 people think there may be a different consensus now, and two others think they have new arguments to present that aren't necessarily "new" but weren't considered during the first discussion. I could also support there being a "net 5 for 24 hours" or similar requirement to ensure it's not just 5 pile on votes and then boom RfC happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I think a change in the editor mix, alone, is a terrible reason to revisit a consensus. It makes no sense for consensi to swing back and forth depending on who shows up this time. That's random, and consensi should not be random. And there is no reason to believe that the later group has better judgment than the earlier group merely because they are later. I hope to comprehend and respond to the rest after my poor head is rested. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe we need this. Editors who seek to displace established consensus are usually slapped down in pretty short order. If anything, consensus is too static on this page, and our processes too sclerotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. And what if we want to revisit this consensus, huh? Anyway, this is too much red tape. This article is already practically wrapped in razorwire from successive consensuses, making it extremely tricky to edit; at the same time, it's an article for an exceedingly high-profile living person where events can move extremely rapidly and could require similarly quick updates depending on coverage. Beyond that this is a solution looking for a problem - this talk page is active (as you'd expect it to be) but overall we're handling things all right. I get that the constant challenges are annoying but on the balance there's a limit to how thoroughly an article like this one can be locked down. Also, I'm not even sure that this is allowable under WP:CCC - we can prevent frivolous challenges, sure, but if consensus has changed, then it has changed; our consensus policy does not allow us to irrevocably bind future decision-making this way. And for that matter, how would you determine if the situation has changed significantly? By... consensus? Wouldn't someone who disagrees that it has changed significantly immediately shut down any attempt to gain such a consensus? This proposal wouldn't even achieve what it is trying to do; instead, as soon as actual consensus has shifted, it would derail discussions into endless discursive arguments over procedure, which is not what we should be encouraging. --Aquillion (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate endlessly recurring debate, not to introduce new bureaucracy. That's the purpose of all consensus. There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing the revisitation question every time it comes up.{{pb}}This is not a new concept, it merely codifies what we've been doing a lot for years. I'm fairly certain these criteria have been applied more often than not at this article. Sometimes the words have been different; e.g. "This has been discussed to death."; but the principle was the same: With all we have to attend to, we can't afford to revisit a consensus without a demonstrable reason to do so. "A few editors want to revisit" is not a demonstrable reason. Sometimes, those few editors were on the losing side of the consensus and just want another bite at the apple. "Maybe we'll have better luck this time; let's roll the dice and find out." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose I don't think this is necessary. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and pure votes shouldn't be used in this manner. This likely violates site policy and may be considered local consensus. BootsED (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&redirect=no Donald Trump] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 3#Mr./Mr Trump}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 05:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was curious as to why the the allegations of sexual violence against minors and others are not in the article 209.253.210.19 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Me too, considering the recent fuss Elon Musk has made about the matter. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1294339044 this] was a proper edit. Then you incorrectly modified your timestamp [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1294339094 here], making it difficult to find the edit in the page history. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

His bio should include that he was the second president elected to nonconsecutive terms, like grover cleveland 2600:1012:B32D:79DF:4129:4125:4D95:505B (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Mentioned at Donald Trump#2024 presidential election, though it omits Grover. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::We should add Grover BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Why? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

Thank you for following the bold-revert-discuss cycle when improving this page. Your contributions are appreciated! DapperDoo91 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Technically a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, but it's nice to receive some positive feedback. So I'm not closing. Like all Wikipedia editors, we all deserve more recognition. {{small|(Well, most of us. Occasionally one of us deserves more recognition of a different kind.)}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Secretary Clinton 8x10 2400 1.jpg

Hello, about the "official" picture for the infobox, are we supposed to update this automatically whenever the White House releases a new photo of the president? Why can't we just pick one and stick with that? KlrMakuria (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's very common (universal?) to use the most recent official portrait in the infoboxes for officeholders. We're just following the crowd, and it's not a bad convention. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I see Hillary Clinton isn't using an official portrait, so the convention is not universal. Maybe it's because she's no longer an officeholder or a potential officeholder. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Clinton's official portrait is actually kinda scary and not the highest quality. I do believe that the new portrait of Trump is the highest quality. Though, if we wanted to go down the less menacing route, we could do his first term portrait. However, that would require undoing previous consensus. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with changing back to the first term portrait. Looks much more official than this new one or the original "official" second term portrait. Paraćina (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I prefer the original. Galavitë47 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::We call that a "non-argument". Waste of your time and ours. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I am generally neutral. I kinda like the new portrait as an artwork, leaps and bounds ahead of 2017 and the one early this year. It also gives Trump his own demeanor besides Happy Basic Politician™ like how Winston Churchill or FDR appear in their portraits. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Nah, keep it how it is. The new portrait is a better reflection of who Trump really is. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::If I remember correctly, Trump's first term portrait was kept in the infobox for this article long after he left office after his first term, even up until the White House released a new portrait for his second term. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You're probably correct. Most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::So we would keep the current one then? AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::In my strong opinion, yes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Most people knew during Biden's term that Trump would attempt to run for president again in 2024, so that's probably why they kept the official portrait because he was still a potential officeholder. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Look, here's one important reason why we have the convention. It avoids the effects of editor bias, the appearance of editor bias, the possibility of editor bias, and any discussion about editor bias regarding the infobox photo. The White House makes the decision for us and done. I like that.{{pb}}The White House's bias? I can live with that that as the lesser of two evils. At Cary Grant, we're using a photo showing how Mr. Grant wanted to look (or how his film studio wanted him to look), when there are surely more "neutral" or "natural" photos of him available. White House ≅ Paramount Pictures. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Edited after reply. 05:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::We tend to go with last official portrait for "these people", heads of state/government etc, so that's fine. For people like Grant, I think we try for "at the top of their career" or close. Someone could probably make a WP-article about the former official photo for :Category:Photographs of Donald Trump though, I think it had quite a bit of coverage, like [https://www.npr.org/2025/06/03/nx-s1-5422230/the-white-house-unveils-the-new-official-portrait-of-president-trump]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The official portraits of presidents and first ladies are the ones done in oil and displayed somewhere in the White House after they have left it. (Well, obviously not Biden's as long as Trump is in residence, and Obama's is probably now stored on the Pentagon's second basement level next to Milley's.) George W. Bush didn't [https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppbd.00371/ pose for his official portrait until 2003], two years into his first term. The WP consensus for bios on American presidents appears to be use of the last official portrait — see Barack Obama who is the only other president who had a new official photo taken for his second term ([https://web.archive.org/web/20120208221358/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama first term photo]), AFAIK. This is the current photograph "[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/us/trump-portrait-white-house.html used for day-to-day functions]. It hangs in American government facilities around the world, and at entry points to the country". Let's leave the interpretation to art professors and [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/arts/design/trump-portrait-presidential.html critics]. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The foreign policy subsection of Trump's second presidential term section includes the following paragraph:

{{tqb|Trump and his incoming administration helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas alongside the Biden administration, enacted a day prior to his inauguration. In March, Israel broke the ceasefire.}}

Is it necessary to include the sentence "In March, Israel broke the ceasefire", considering this article is about Donald Trump, and not Israel or the Israel-Hamas conflict? Paraćina (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Stating the status quo of an active news story in the headlines is not useful? ErnestKrause (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Updated with Security Council veto 6-4-2025 on Israel-Hamas. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Reverted per #37. At the very least this is clearly not "summary-level". First clue: "On June 4". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Not really an #37 issue, since Trump is interacting with Netanyahu since the first presidency, as is already stated in the main article in the First presidency section for Trump here. Possibly revise wording, though the edit is not an #37 issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Any mention of a single event is not summary level. I'm fully aware that the article contains a number of other vios of #37. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hello {{u|Paraćina}}; Madruss is opposed to this edit about Trump and Israel, and the U.N. It is part of the history of Trump's interaction with Israel and Netanyahu since the First presidency; why does he see this as a single event in June of this year. The edit also includes Trump's interaction with the UN in the Second presidency which is notable following his appointment of UN representatives for Personnel earlier this year. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::We can't point to a collection of single events and call it summary level. It's just a collection of #37 vios. Summary level means a high-level overview, not merely a trimmed version of details found in other Trump articles. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Answer below; in the section you have opened for item #37. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I slightly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump%2FFAQ&diff=1293875556&oldid=1280005570 modified] the wording of the first FAQ on this talk page to acknowledge claims of bias in Trump's favor as well as against him. If anyone disputes this please let me know. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: I checked the revision history of the FAQ template and it seems that the wording of the question had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump%2FFAQ&diff=1280005570&oldid=1275798285 changed] by a single-edit IP to remove the word "for". I'll assume my recent edit was agreed upon by the template creators. MilaKuliž (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I reverted to the older version. Revisions to Talk:Donald Trump/FAQ don't show up in the Talk page history, so the "improvement" went unnoticed. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Article currently reads: "During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries..."

Why is this the first thing the reader learns about the first term? Was it particularly impactful? It was only in effect for two months. Wouldn't it be better to include some of the more impactful policies/events? This just reads like a hit-piece or something as currently constituted. The ban is worth mentioning, but not sure it belongs in the lede.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:21AE:DB98:1435:DA0F (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:It was literally the first thing he did, day one. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::You literally haven't understood the question. The question was - and is - why is this so significant that it is mentioned at all, much less first? I'd have thought the lede would be a place to explain the significance of the man and his accomplishments. Why would anyone think the travel ban is more significant than anything else he did?2604:3D09:C77:4E00:21AE:DB98:1435:DA0F (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Such as? The lead mentions plenty of other things, e.g., the withdrawal from agreements on climate and trade, the felony conviction, etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We have had this discussion before. So name an accomplishment that has had a major impact? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I had a look at Conservapedia’s article out of curiosity, all the positives they cite, we already have in the lead, like deregulation etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting the admonishment to be mindful of previous discussions: since there now have been two official portraits this year, I suggest changing the caption to "Official portrait, June 2025" to explain and distinguish. NapoliRoma (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The first was his inauguration portrait. This is his official portrait. BootsED (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::We were calling it official portrait in the caption since early April—the distinction was considered unimportant. It was the photo used at whitehouse.gov, so it was the official portrait for our purposes.{{pb}}I just don't think we need to qualify the caption like what is proposed. Few readers will know/remember that there was an earlier official portrait of Trump47; the ", June 2025" wouldn't mean much to the others. "So what?" would be a valid question. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In June 2019, current consensus item 37 was established with two objectives (as I understood it) regarding the post-2015 part of this article:

1. Begin moving to summary style. This meant providing overviews, not merely selected or abbreviated details found in Trump subarticles (or not found in Trump subarticles). Executive summaries, if you will. It was reasonable to expect that this would receive somewhat-continuous editor attention until completed.
2. Avoiding recentism, focus on things that could be reasonably expected to have lasting effect on Trump's life or legacy. "How significant will this be in ten years?"

Ninety percent of the consensus contributors are no longer around. That shouldn't be a factor: a consensus doesn't void when its contributors move on.{{pb}}The consensus has not met its objectives, and in fact I would call it a dismal failure. Editors don't seem to know how to write content that way. It's not in my skill set, either, or I would have been doing a lot of bold editing in that area. All I can do is challenge bold edits,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1293999082] and I'm pretty much the only editor doing that. As for preexisting content, very little progress has occurred since #37 was established.{{pb}}So it's time to amend or supersede #37 with a new commitment, or cancel it outright. We do not need consensuses that are widely ignored, since that tends to undermine the entire consensus system.{{pb}}Comments please. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep #37. I I think limiting content to summary-level mention of things having or likely to have a lasting impact on his legacy — presidential and pre, post, and between presidencies — is a necessary policy for this article. I don't know why I didn't comment at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_99#Proposal_for_resolution. According to my edit history, I was mostly busy on other articles at the time, so I may have overlooked the discussion. The headings of the "Proposal for resolution" and the preceding discussion "Moving content from this article" are a tad vague.

:{{tq|All I can do is challenge bold edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1293999082 and I'm pretty much the only editor doing that.}} I beg to differ. (If you're feeling overwhelmed, take a break. Nobody's gonna dock the pay you're not getting.) If you or another editor hadn’t challenged that bold edit, I would have done so now, as I did https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1290551243&oldid=1290547597 here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1291179139&oldid=1291092146 here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1292337065&oldid=1292266546 here. I’m still mulling over removing a couple of recent bold insertions of material similar to content I removed in the past. You’ve also challenged one of my bold edits, so there can obviously be differences of opinion on what’s "nontangential to his biography". Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::And none of those three challenges cited #37. If we can operate without #37, we don't need #37. And none of those challenges said anything about summary level. And very little of the current article is in summary level as I understand the term. Merely being more selective about the details is not the same as summary level; summary level is a whole different kind of writing. As I said, I don't know how to write it; this is largely for the same reason I avoid writing in that subject area in general: I lack the requisite wide knowledge of it. I know some editors have that wide knowledge, including you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep As any reason given will still apply now. In fact (given his style of leadership), it is more relevant to make now so as to make sure that any decision of his we add is not immediately contradicted by one he made a week later. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Revise the wording of #37's intentions. Mandruss has linked the edit he is discussing here above when he reverted my addition of the U.N. Security Council veto on Hamas-Israel yesterday by Trump. This is a continuation of the Hamas-Israel edit which already exists in the Second Presidency section of the main article. Apparently, simply because I stated the date of the veto vote by Trump, then Mandruss reverted because of his belief that the mere mention of a date disqualifies the edit from the article under #37. If that's his interpretation of #37, then I'm going to claim its excessive and in need of revision. The Hamas-Israel material is already in the article (its still there now) and the update of the Trump veto of the Hamas-Israel Security Council vote is both useful and appropriate to add into the Trump article. There is no violation of #37; the edit is worthwhile to keep. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1293999082 Here's] the edit again. {{tq|his belief that the mere mention of a date disqualifies the edit from the article under #37}} I don't think that's an accurate characterization. It clearly was not summary level as I understand summary level. As for long-term legacy, that's perhaps less clear but unnecessary to debate because the content fails the first test. But this is evidence that there isn't enough agreement on what #37 actually means, and that is not a good situation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Although the original discussion you link (from 2019?) had intentions of limiting the Trump article size, that's not what #37 is used for now. The Hamas-Israel paragraph is already in the current article and ends abruptly in last March? How odd that the matter is now up for vote in the U.N. Security Council, but all Wikipedia can do is to leave the Hamas-Israel paragraph in the Trump article in its status from last March and blank out updates. It leaves the material locked into its status from last March and appears to blank out all updates for an edit which already exists in the article from other editors. The wording for Item #37 needs to be revised and updated. Edits which clarify previous edits already in the article ought to be allowed for inclusion in the article. Trump's relation to Hamas-Israel did not end in last March. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep #37. Needed in a limited biography with a score of subarticles when we get off track with deletable details. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep - but make explicitly clear that people can override the excerpt/"lead" of the subarticle if there is consensus to do so here. The lead of a subarticle should comply with WP:LEAD and WP:SUBARTICLE. But if it doesn't, it should be clear to people that they can request an "override" here to allow the article here to form its own "lead" (section about the subarticle) if that subarticle's lead section is not appropriate/sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Keep This article needs to be kept to a summary-style overview of his life and associated child articles. Otherwise it will get too big. Currently, I think the article does a good job at this and am unsure why we would want to remove this. BootsED (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::The wording appears to be a little ambiguous, and it could readily be improved to clarify the range of the summary style as used in #37. Is it intended to summarize biography facts over a week, or over a month, or over a year. Its fairly clear that the meaning of 'summary style' seems to want to encompass biography facts as summarized to less than one year in duration, though #37 does not clarify this. The period of time intended for acceptable summaries should be specified. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

At 3:10 PM on June 5, 2025, Elon Musk [https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1930703865801810022 tweeted] that Donald Trump was in the epstein files and that was allegedly the reason why the files has not been made public yet. Currently, it is receiving mass news coverage such as the [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk NY times], [https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-says-donald-trump-epstein-files-2081653 newsweek] and more.

Should this be mentioned in the main article? Or should it be split into another article, like "Elon Musk-Donald Trump conflict" since there appears to be a controversy around these two recently. 2603:9000:BC00:149E:E107:5D27:B266:4C93 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is a pretty big claim about a BLP that is sourced to one guy on social media. I don't think we should mention it yet at all. Even saying "Elon Musk said X" is too much if we don't have any evidence whatsoever of the underlying claim other than that Elon Musk said it. Loki (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, i still beelieve theres potential about an article based on the current elon and trump conflict 2603:9000:BC00:149E:BDBD:3700:5F0D:542 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Inclined to share your caution on this. It doesn’t help that I consider Musk a particularly unreliable source of information. ···sardonism · t · c 20:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There are reliable sources covering this conflict. Alias, i started a draft: Draft:Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud 2603:9000:BC00:149E:BDBD:3700:5F0D:542 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't do this solely based on a tweet in the heat of the moment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is currently a deletion discussion in process regarding the aforementioned Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud article. I recommend waiting until that discussion is resolved before any potential action here is taken. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{OD}}

This does not look like an Epstein story as much as it is reporting about the falling out of Musk and Trump as just covered in NPR here: [https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5424502/trump-elon-musk ]. Since the Musk-Trump 'partnership' has been covered for the last 3 months as headline news, then this appears to have notable aspects as a Musk-Trump update. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. This is part of a personal dispute, and while often the President of the US making an accusation would be due weight, it's not DUE here imo. Even if it was DUE, the BLP concerns are significant. Just because Trump is a public figure does not mean we should publish accusations like this about him. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:NO, it's not new, and if Musky had the evidance...why wait until the feud to reveal it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Typo, or have you come within smelling distance of the chainsaw wielder? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I am asking if Musky has evidence. Why did he wait untill now to reveal it, if he has not presented any new evidance, this is just part of an already existing controversy. Not everything Musky says or does is world-shattering. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Musky? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::This seems like WP:TRUMPCRUFT see

:::::Also WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:TOOSOON. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's too early to determine whether potential content would be in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as the fallout could have long-lasting political and economic consequences in the U.S., but we don't really know what will come of it. Best to leave the subject to one to two sentences in this article about the current state of the fallout, as speculation about its effects would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. MilaKuliž (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, its called a nick name. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Let's avoid using nicknames for BLPs, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Never heard him called that before, but okay AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:No. We should not mention it here. I would also say it is not ripe for its own article. The two of them having a public falling-out on social media over the One Big Beautiful Bill is news-of-the-moment worthy, but I don't think it's going to have any sort of lasting consequence worthy of being included in the encyclopedia - and I generally tend to err on the side of inclusion when there are sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::And now I see it is currently mentioned in the article about the bill. I think that if it goes anywhere at this point, that is where it should be. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'll repeat again what I said in previous discussions, both here and elsewhere: If the Epstein connection is important enough to warrant entire dedicated sections in the articles for Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and various other people, then it should be here as well. There is no reason for it not to be.

::Musk's assertion is just one more reason to add to the already large pile. Any argument that Trump's Epstein connections don't warrant a mention in this article is a a clear, colossal double standard that, quite frankly, risks damaging Wikipedia's credibility.

::Musk is also hardly just some guy. He's been one of Trump's closest advisors and one of the most important people in his inner circle for the past year. He presumably has insider knowledge. While Musk could well be lying, his remarks cannot and should not be dismissed as unimportant. TKSnaevarr (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Part of the reason for the {{tq|colossal double standard}} may be the different sets of editors working on WP articles. WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The Trump-Epstein connection hadn't received the extensive RS news coverage at the time of Epstein's incarceration and death that, e.g., the Clinton-Epstein conspiracy theory did. If that changes, it may be due for Trump's bio. Donald Trump#Racial and gender views mentions that [a]t least 25 women publicly accused [Trump] of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/23/donald-trump-accuser-stacey-williams-jeffrey-epstein The Guardian reported last year] that Stacey Williams, who was a model and 25 years old in 1993, accused Trump of groping and sexually touching her after Epstein introduced them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wouldn't this be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON? AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Latest news on June 7 is that Musk appears to be retracting his online Epstein comments by deleting them now as reported by FOX news here: [https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-musk-latest-musk-deletes-x-posts-linking-trump-epstein]. Apparently he does not wish to follow up on his Epstein link comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hmmm... It's almost like we should wait awhile before even discussing things like this. You heard it here first {{small|(not)}}. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Deleting the post is not the same thing as retracting the comment. The fact that he made that statement at all is quite noteworthy, and the persistent refusal to include anything related to the matter in the article remains a double standard. TKSnaevarr (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:The article itself should be notified. I can't post the necessary templates from my phone. Riposte97 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud is appropriately tagged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Good stuff. Riposte97 (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Interesting to know. CaemPaepus865405 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think Trump should be considered an autocrat,so could you pls delete the category autocracy? 2A01:5A8:302:2ED6:5BA:46E0:807C:7AB (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} I don't know who put that there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, but I'm starting this discussion here so it gets more attention. @Locke Cole reverted my edit on Template:Donald Trump series, which reworked its section orders to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Donald_Trump_series&oldid=1294233609 look like this]. My rationale was that the current template is far too bloated — many entries relate tangentially at best to Donald Trump the person, — and its section orders are confusing and overlapping. Details from his presidencies are split into the overlapping and inconsistent "Tenure" and "Policies", instead of the (imo) much more logical "First presidency" and "Second presidency.

It is my opinion that Template:Donald Trump (the navbox) and the sub-navboxes for his first and second presidencies should be the templates that contain all the articles, while the sidebar, given how much its length disturbs articles with MOS:SANDWICHing and such, should stick to a much smaller group of high-level articles, as in my edit.

Curious for y'all's thoughts. DecafPotato (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd tend to agree with the idea that the sidebar should be a high level overview and mostly chronological in nature, with the navbox at the bottom having more links potentially. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Bringing up the current Consensus 46:

{{tqb|46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)}}

Now that the 2017 portrait is no longer used for the infobox, we should either retire this consensus item or supersede it to apply to the current infobox caption, which would be "Official portrait, 2025" MilaKuliž (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:The current image is the one taken in 2025, for Trump's second term, so yes, we should update it. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:No need to re-litigate. I just updated the text.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=1294340339] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Great, thanks. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Duplicate. Please don't multiple-post the same discussions. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Other biographies have pronunciation practice, why doesn't trumps 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Trump has made many posts on Truth Social, but those could be false information and shouldn't be relied upon by Wikipedia. Galavitë47 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Trump has a history of making false or misleading statements and claims on social media, so we should look for other sources instead of assuming anything he says on Truth Social or wherever is true. Galavitë47 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. Can't trust most politicians these days unfortunately. DarkaLjiljpan (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think Wkipedia is using Trump's posts as sources. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::If so, where are they? AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I thought that Wikipedia doesn't use Trump's social media posts as reliable sources, for the same reason that they won't use any statements a politician or government member makes on social media as reliable sources. All politicians are susceptible to lying and propagating delusion, and Trump is no different. Paraćina (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say they can be used as sources for the contents of the posts. Of course, we cannot just assume that anything/everything Trump posts is true and reliable. I think a post on Truth Social (or whatever social media site) from Trump can be evidence that he said something but that's it. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to bring up Donald Trump and his administration's relations with Croatia, as well as how Trump is viewed by the Croatian government and the Croatian people. At first, it was thought that Trump would promote trade between Croatia and the United States by easing trade restrictions on the European Union (which Croatia is a member state of) as well as allowing more imports of Croatian products. However, Trump has done the opposite, increasing tariffs and restrictions on foreign goods from just about every country, including Croatia. This has been met with substantial negative reactions from the Croatian public, with over two-thirds of Croatian voters saying they have a "generally negative" or "strongly negative" view of Trump. The Croatian government has also clapped back at Trump, with Croatian president Zoran Milanović comparing Trump to Hungary's authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. DarkaLjiljpan (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Separate thread on Croatia still open higher up on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=y}}

Please add trumps name pronunciation 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Why not 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Edit requests are not for anything that might require discussion. When editors misuse edit requests in this way, the above is the standard response. See WP:EDITREQ. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok sorry

::::I made a new post here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Adding_pronunciation_of_trumps_name to discuss the adding 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a small question about WP:TRUMPCRUFT - does the general idea of that essay apply to other pages as well, or just this Donald Trump page? AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Closing per current consensus item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The whole article reads like a political piece written by democrats? Every single paragraph except the first two have wording saying that trump either missinformed, failed to keep a promise, or was accused of a crime. Sentence after sentence after sentence against him. Not a single sentence saying that he did anything viewed as okay or fine.

Every piece of neutral information about a policy or action is followed by a "however" or a "instead" and a sentence to explain why the policy or action should be seen as bad. MrCaydenneKawls (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:The way I understand it, Wikipedia only uses reliable sources, which tend to be more left-leaning and critical of Trump. I have noticed that both U.S. and non-U.S. news sources are generally critical of Trump. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:See first point at Talk:Donald Trump/FAQ on the perceived biasness. – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

To provide easy access to other, generally more specified Trump-related content and articles, a link to an index of Trump-related articles should be inserted at the top of the page, in the same area that the disambiguation warnings and links are located. This would give readers the ability to find other Trump-related articles quickly. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:The {{tq|index of Trump-related articles}} is just below the infobox, generated by {{tlx|Donald Trump series}}. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump has just restricted Elon Musk's access to his Truth Social platform in the wake of the recent arguments and disagreements that have happened between them. Should we mention that in this article? BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:no. That's not remotely important enough to put in his biographic article EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Probably not. This is a summary-level biography. Riposte97 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:That is very specific and probably would not matter much 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NOTNEWS - This is irrelevant to Trump's bio page. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

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

We should add the pronunciation of trumps name to the article to make sure people know how to say it 2603:8000:1801:6500:4148:A559:921E:4575 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I'm aware, IPA pronunciation guides are only added for names which are agreed upon to be challenging to pronounce by certain dialects of English speakers. I'm unaware of any dialects that would have trouble pronouncing Trump's name. MilaKuliž (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Us Aussies call him "Tramp".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

{{Donald Trump series}}

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

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

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

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

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

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