Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off voting

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}}

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

{{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)

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

• Support. {{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 opposesupport this and suggest expanding the body text on the topic a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Furthermore, policy on verifiability states that "{{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)
• ::I don't understand how it clashes; there *was* a spike in coverage at the beginning of the term, when it was probably added, but it has failed long lasting notability which is why there is no recent coverage. satkara❈talk 16:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. This is addressed in the body of the text. Is it significant enough to be included in the lead? Arguably yes, if going by vibes only or something, but there isn’t sufficient coverage to justify its inclusion in the lead at this point. Nemov (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{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)
• :{{ping|R. G. Checkers}} Would they {{tq|push this to relative obscurity}} because they're more important, or because they're more recent? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm saying continued coverage of other future events could push this out of the lead. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose removal, for the following reasons:

1. The pardons are more noteworthy than other items contained in the lead. For example, the "racketeering case" is not as noteworthy as the pardons.
2. The pardons continue to be relevant, and are not just "old news" as some proponents of this issue have suggested. He is still on a pardoning spree; [https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present this list is up to May 30].

• Oppose. It's still getting WP:SUSTAINED coverage (just glance at [https://news.google.com/search?q=%22january%206%22%20pardons&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen Google News]; see eg. {{cite web|first1=Alexander|last1=Mallin|accessdate=2025-06-14|title=Bondi says LA protests 'very different' than Jan. 6 rioters who were pardoned|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bondi-argues-trump-jan-6-pardons-create-double/story?id=122737210|website=ABC News|date=June 11, 2025}}{{cite web|accessdate=2025-06-14|title=Top Jan. 6 prosecutor says Trump's Capitol riot pardons signal approval of political violence|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/top-jan-6-prosecutor-says-trumps-capitol-riot-pardons-signal-approval-rcna210409|date=4 June 2025|website=NBC News}}) as well as significant academic coverage that either focuses heavily on it{{cite web|first1=Richard C.|last1=Boldt|first2=Donald G.|last2=Gifford|accessdate=2025-06-14|title=Interference with the Democratic Process as Public Nuisance|url=https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4032&context=mlr|date=2025|website=doi.org}}{{cite journal|first1=Marina|last1=Nord|first2=Angiolillo|last2=Fabio|last3=Good God|first3=Ana|first4=Staffan I.|last4=Lindberg|title=State of the world 2024: 25 years of autocratization – democracy trumped?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2487825|journal=Democratization|date=19 May 2025|issn=1351-0347|pages=839–864|volume=32|issue=4|doi=10.1080/13510347.2025.2487825}} or which plainly treats it as a major turning point in Trump's biography{{cite journal|first1=Andrea|last1=Birdsall|first2=Rebecca|last2=and Sanders|title=From ‘evil doers’ to ‘very fine people’: The politics of shifting counterterrorism targets|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2025.2466478|journal=Journal of Human Rights|date=15 March 2025|issn=1475-4835|pages=236–253|volume=24|issue=2|doi=10.1080/14754835.2025.2466478}}{{cite journal|first1=Eduardo|last1=Capulong|first2=Andrew|last2=King-Ries|first3=Monte|last3=Mills|title=Democratic Lawyering: Upending the “Hidden Curriculum” to Prepare New Lawyers for a New World|url=https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawteachingjournal/vol2/iss1/6|journal=The Journal of Law Teaching and Learning|date=5 June 2025|issn=2996-0509|pages=191|volume=2|issue=1}}{{cite book|first1=Desmond|last1=King|title=Political Violence and American Politics|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73168-6_11|publisher=Springer Nature Switzerland|date=1 May 2025|location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-73168-6|pages=295–314|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-73168-6_11}} which suggests that it has sufficient long-term significance for the lead. The fact that many news sources are relating it to eg. Trump's reaction to the LA unrest, and many academic sources are focusing on it as a moment of central significance for both the law and Trump's presidency, suggests that it has become a key part of his bio and which therefore deserves a sentence in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per R. G. Checkers . -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Editorial judgment is required here, news sources cannot filter out WP:NTRUMP but we can. That J6 is a significant moment in modern American history is noted by most scholars, consequently that virtually every law enforcement action of, what has been veritably described as an attempted coup, was nullified is indeed significant for the person who made the pardon in the first place and on who's behalf (or behest) this was was being attempted makes it even more so. Gotitbro (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal as whitewashing. Laying off a bunch of people, which sucks but is normal and not illegal, is not somehow more notable than pardoning a bunch of supporters who tried to take over the government for you. It’s exemplar of his anti-democratic cronyism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Remove. For such an overencumbered article, we need to be more selective about what we're including up there. Those voting to include the content do make good points and I'd probably be on their side if it were any other article; but, let's face it, this is Trump and so there will be an endless list of things that could arguably go into the lead. J6 itself I think is notable enough to, the pardonings are less notable. — Czello ^(music) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The short version of the RfC question: Should this be removed? This is a Yes or No question, but for some reason we used Support and Oppose instead. This is vulnerable to confusion: Are you "supporting" or "opposing" the content, or its removal? Cases in point: I believe (at least) {{u|SusanLesch}} and {{u|Czello}} meant Support, not Oppose, and should correct their !votes for clarity.{{pb}}Support and Oppose should be used for proposals, not yes/no questions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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

{{reflist-talk}}

Can we get consensus to reinstitute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald%20Trump&diff=1295194643&oldid=1295143797 this] content, at least as a starting point? Riposte97 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

::The "Social media" section was the one section in "Political practice and rhetoric" that the RfCs didn't propose to massively cut, and that cut is apparently only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARiposte97&diff=1293757802&oldid=1293668805 on hold temporarily]. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• The bold edit replaced the longstanding content with material copied from two sections and the lead of Social media use by Donald Trump, verbatim and with all sources, and including the "archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead" in violation of consensus 25. As I said in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald%20Trump&diff=1295194643&oldid=1295143797 my editsum], the bold edit is not summary-level. It adds minutiae, quotes excessively, and uses unencyclopedic language ("numerous passionate posts"?). The TMTG "origin story" doesn't belong in "Political practice and rhetoric". It is already adequately covered in Between presidencies with his other business interests. {{cot|Material copied from these sections:}}

From Social media use by Donald Trump#Banned from both platforms

Once a prolific user, Donald Trump was blocked from posting new content to Facebook and Instagram from January 6, 2021, to February 7, 2023.{{cite news |last1=Conger |first1=Kate |author-link1=Kate Conger |last2=Isaac |first2=Mike |author-link2=Mike Isaac |date=January 16, 2021 |title=Inside Twitter's Decision to Cut Off Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/twitter-donald-trump-jack-dorsey.html |access-date=October 10, 2021 |work=The New York Times}} On January 6, 2021, amidst an attack at the Capitol while Congress was counting the electoral votes, Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms. Facebook's vice president of integrity, Guy Rosen, explained that the video "contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence." (YouTube also removed the same video. Twitter at first disabled comments; later, the Tweet was deleted.){{cite web|last=Ortutay|first=Barbara|date=January 6, 2021|title=Amid Capitol violence, Facebook, YouTube remove Trump video|url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amid-capitol-violence-facebook-youtube-233326163.html|access-date=January 6, 2021|website=finance.yahoo.com|language=en-US|archive-date=March 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309030407/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amid-capitol-violence-facebook-youtube-233326163.html|url-status=live}} The next day, Facebook said the block would remain at least until the end of Trump's term on January 20.{{Cite news|last1=Isaac|first1=Mike|last2=Conger|first2=Kate|date=January 7, 2021|title=Facebook Bars Trump Through End of His Term|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/business/facebook-trump-ban.html|access-date=January 7, 2021|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=January 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210108020722/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/technology/facebook-trump-ban.html|url-status=live}} On May 5, 2021, after considering whether to reinstate Trump's account, Facebook's Oversight Board upheld Trump's suspensions on Facebook and Instagram but instructed Facebook, Inc. to reassess the indefinite ban within six months;{{Cite web|title=Trump's Facebook ban upheld by Oversight Board|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-s-facebook-ban-upheld-oversight-board-n1266339|access-date=May 5, 2021|website=NBC News|date=May 5, 2021|language=en|archive-date=May 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505133504/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-s-facebook-ban-upheld-oversight-board-n1266339|url-status=live}} one month later, Facebook decided to extend Trump's ban to two years and reconsider his case no earlier than January 7, 2023.{{Cite news|last1=Isaac|first1=Mike|last2=Frenkel|first2=Sheera|date=June 4, 2021|title=Facebook Says Trump's Ban Will Last at Least 2 Years|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/technology/facebook-trump-ban.html|access-date=June 4, 2021|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=June 7, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210607085823/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/technology/facebook-trump-ban.html|url-status=live}}{{Cite web |last=O'Sullivan |first=Donie |date=January 2, 2023 |title=Facebook considering whether to allow Trump to return, decision expected in 'coming weeks' |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/02/business/facebook-decision-allow-trump-return/index.html |access-date=January 3, 2023 |website=CNN Business |language=en |archive-date=January 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230102230400/https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/02/business/facebook-decision-allow-trump-return/index.html |url-status=live }}

From Social media use by Donald Trump#Truth Social

On October 20, 2021, it was announced that Trump would be launching a new social media website called Truth Social.{{cite web |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/577712-trump-announces-new-social-media-network-called-truth/ |title=Trump announces new social media network called 'TRUTH Social' |date=October 20, 2021 |access-date=October 20, 2021 |work=The Hill |first=Joseph |last=Choi |archive-date=October 21, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021011726/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/577712-trump-announces-new-social-media-network-called-truth |url-status=live }}{{Cite web|title=Donald Trump launches 'TRUTH' social media platform|url=https://www.bongoexclusivetv.com/2021/10/donald-trump-launches-truth-social.html|access-date=October 21, 2021|website=Bongo Exclusive|date=October 21, 2021|language=english|archive-date=October 21, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021192654/https://www.bongoexclusivetv.com/2021/10/donald-trump-launches-truth-social.html|url-status=live}} It is run by Trump Media & Technology Group, a company incorporated in February 2021 and which on October 20, 2021, made a deal to merge with a special purpose acquisition company, Digital World Acquisition, that will fund it. The Republican National Committee sent an email the next day asking supporters to join Truth Social.{{Cite news|last1=Enrich|first1=David|last2=Goldstein|first2=Matthew|last3=Goldmacher|first3=Shane|date=October 21, 2021|title=Trump Takes Advantage of Wall Street Fad to Bankroll New Venture|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/business/media/trump-spac-social-media-venture.html|access-date=October 22, 2021|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=October 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029232519/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/business/media/trump-spac-social-media-venture.html|url-status=live}} Truth Social debuted in Apple's App Store in February 2022,{{Cite web |last=Wong |first=Queenie |date=February 21, 2022 |title=Trump's Truth Social Debuts in Apple's App Store, Hits No. 1 in Top Charts |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/trumps-truth-social-debuts-in-apples-app-store/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224155803/https://www.cnet.com/news/trumps-truth-social-debuts-in-apples-app-store/ |archive-date=February 24, 2022 |access-date=March 4, 2022 |website=CNET |language=en}} and had reportedly drawn 1.2 million installations by the end of March.ANTOINETTE SIU [https://www.thewrap.com/trump-truth-social-app-93-drop-signups-traffic/ (March 29, 2022) Trump's Truth Social App Plummets in Traffic, Sees 93% Drop in Signups Since Launch Week (Exclusive)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220331183608/https://www.thewrap.com/trump-truth-social-app-93-drop-signups-traffic/ |date=March 31, 2022 }} 1.2 million installations, according to Sensor Tower According to reports, Trump has a licensing agreement with TMTG requiring him to use Truth Social as his primary social media platform, and to wait at least six hours before reposting material to any other social media platform, with some exceptions for political activities.{{Cite news |date=May 16, 2022 |title=Trump's Truth Social posts will have to wait before reposts on other platforms |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-truth-social-posts-will-have-wait-before-reposts-other-platforms-2022-05-16/ |access-date=May 16, 2022}}{{Cite web |last=Huston |first=Caitlin |date=May 16, 2022 |title=Trump Agrees to Use Truth Social as Primary Social Media Platform |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/trump-agrees-to-use-truth-social-as-primary-social-media-platform-1235147454/ |access-date=May 16, 2022 |website=The Hollywood Reporter |language=en-US |archive-date=May 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220517134124/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/trump-agrees-to-use-truth-social-as-primary-social-media-platform-1235147454/ |url-status=live }}

From Social media use by Donald Trump#Banned from both platforms, Social media use by Donald Trump#Truth Social, and one sentence from that article's lead

Elon Musk, after acquiring Twitter, reinstated his Twitter account in November 2022.{{cite news |last1=Mac |first1=Ryan |author-link1=Ryan Mac |last2=Browning |first2=Kellen |date=November 19, 2022 |title=Elon Musk Reinstates Trump's Twitter Account |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/technology/trump-twitter-musk.html |access-date=November 21, 2022 |work=The New York Times}}{{cite news |last1=Dang |first1=Sheila |last2=Coster |first2=Helen |date=November 20, 2022 |title=Trump snubs Twitter after Musk announces reactivation of ex-president's account |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-twitter-poll-showing-narrow-majority-want-trump-reinstated-2022-11-20/ |access-date=May 10, 2024 |work=Reuters}} On February 7, 2023, Meta reinstated Trump on Facebook and Instagram,{{Cite web |last=O'Sullivan |first=Donie |date=2023-02-09 |title=Meta restores Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/tech/trump-facebook-instagram-restored/index.html |access-date=2023-02-09 |website=CNN Business |language=en |archive-date=February 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209231221/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/tech/trump-facebook-instagram-restored/index.html |url-status=live }} having announced two weeks earlier that the risk to public safety had "sufficiently receded." Meta said there would be “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses" and that Trump could be banned for up to two years at a time in the future if he reoffends.{{Cite news |last=Duffy |first=Clare |date=25 January 2023 |title=Meta says it will restore Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/25/tech/meta-facebook-trump-decision/index.html |access-date=26 January 2023 |archive-date=January 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230126120724/https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/25/tech/meta-facebook-trump-decision/index.html |url-status=live }} On March 17, 2023, Trump made his first Facebook post since his reinstatement: a video clip of his victory speech following the 2016 presidential election in which he stated, "Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business. Complicated."{{Cite web |last=Samuels |first=Brett |date=2023-03-17 |title=Trump posts on Facebook for first time since reinstatement |url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3905771-trump-posts-on-facebook-for-first-time-since-reinstatement/ |access-date=2023-03-18 |website=The Hill |language=en-US |archive-date=March 18, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230318165723/https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3905771-trump-posts-on-facebook-for-first-time-since-reinstatement/ |url-status=live }} In 2023, in relation to his federal prosecution for allegedly inciting the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Trump made a post to Truth Social stating "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!", which was interpreted by prosecutors as a threat towards "witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him". As a result, the Department of Justice requested a protective order against Donald Trump to prevent him from making public statements regarding the case.{{Cite web |date=2023-08-05 |title=Prosecutors ask judge to issue protective order after Trump post appearing to promise revenge |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-capitol-riot-indictment-protective-order-71cd642e876c47fff4e1283c15f8ca01 |access-date=2023-08-06 |website=Associated Press |language=en |archive-date=August 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230806005539/https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-capitol-riot-indictment-protective-order-71cd642e876c47fff4e1283c15f8ca01 |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |date=2023-08-05 |title=Jan. 6 Prosecutors Ask for Protective Order, Citing Threatening Trump Post |language=en |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-threat-social-media.html |access-date=2023-08-06 |archive-date=August 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230806063105/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-threat-social-media.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Sullivan |first=Tierney Sneed, Kate |date=2023-08-05 |title=Judge denies Trump legal team's motion to extend deadline over protective order dispute in election subversion case {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/trump-truth-social-smith-evidence-2020/index.html |access-date=2023-08-06 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=August 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230805064116/https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/trump-truth-social-smith-evidence-2020/index.html |url-status=live }} The order was issued on August 11, 2023.{{Cite web |date=2023-08-11 |title=Judge warns of restraints to what evidence Trump can talk about, agrees to limited protective order |url=https://apnews.com/article/jan6-trump-indictment-protective-order-jack-smith-7129afbb11d968b42c9500559109f522 |access-date=2023-08-11 |website=AP News |language=en |archive-date=August 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230811232347/https://apnews.com/article/jan6-trump-indictment-protective-order-jack-smith-7129afbb11d968b42c9500559109f522 |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=Judge issues protective order against Trump, cautioning him against 'inflammatory statements' |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hearing-arguments-proposed-protective-order-trumps-jan/story?id=102197791 |access-date=2023-08-11 |website=ABC News |language=en |archive-date=August 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813000756/https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hearing-arguments-proposed-protective-order-trumps-jan/story?id=102197791 |url-status=live }} As Trump encountered further legal problems including the prospect of more civil and criminal trials, he made numerous passionate posts to Truth Social regarding these matters and those involved in them. Commentators described some of them as 'rants' and 'unhinged'.{{Cite magazine |last=Levin |first=Bess |date=2024-04-15 |title=Trump Goes on Predictably Unhinged Rant as Hush Money Trial Begins |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/trump-goes-on-predictably-unhinged-rant-as-hush-money-trial-begins |access-date=2024-05-01 |magazine=Vanity Fair |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2024-01-22 |title=Trump Goes On Another Unhinged Tirade Against E Jean Carroll After Trial Gets Delayed |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-unhinged-tirade-e-jean-carroll-defamation-delay_uk_65aeeb4be4b0d65b024d8cef |access-date=2024-05-01 |website=HuffPost UK |language=en|first=Sanjana|last=Karanth}} In April 2024, Trump was held in contempt of court in a New York court in relation to Truth Social posts about his business records falsification trial (the so-called "hush money trial") that violated a gag order made by the court. To comply with orders from the court, Trump deleted the postings from Truth Social.{{Cite web |date=2024-04-30 |title=Trump trial live updates: Trump held in contempt of court for violating gag order |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trial-live-updates-hush-money-gag-order-b2537390.html |access-date=2024-04-30 |website=The Independent |language=en}} In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle the 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension.{{Cite news |last1=Linskey |first1=Annie |last2=Ballhaus |first2=Rebecca |date=January 29, 2025 |title=Meta to Pay $25 Million to Settle 2021 Trump Lawsuit |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-signs-agreement-calling-for-meta-to-pay-25-million-to-settle-suit-6f734c8c |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |url-access=subscription |archive-date=January 30, 2025 |access-date=January 30, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250130114204/https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-signs-agreement-calling-for-meta-to-pay-25-million-to-settle-suit-6f734c8c |url-status=live }}

{{talkref}}

{{cob}}

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

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

• Riposte97 is correct to point out that "freezing the Trump page in amber" is not a good idea. Bringing in the data from sibling articles by CWW into order to bring the Social Media subsection up to date and include 2023, 2024, and 2025 would appear to make sense to anyone with an eye to wanting to keep this section article current. Since the new edit was adapted by CWW, then the statement from Space4T appears to be inadequate and inaccurate when he states: "Nope, for so many reasons, from Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #37 to trivia, excessive quoting of everybody, and nonencyclopedic language." It cannot be adapted by CWW and nonencyclopedia language at the same time; at least pick the one or the other if you wish to freeze this Trump section of the article in amber. The edit also also has nothing to do with Consensus #37 which editors appear to be using a catch-all ascription for unwanted edits; summary style discussed the writing style which editors should employ when writing something like the lede for the article. That is unrelated to bringing the subsection about Social Media use up to date and to include 2023, 2024, and 2025, which are currently being excluded from the article by other editors. Supporting comments from Riposte97 above to bring the edit back into the article. That section can also be significantly shortened by taking out the back-up archive urls currently used in the citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see anybody suggesting anything should be frozen in amber or anything else. I don't like it when people use hyperbole to misrepresent a position they don't like. Not a good look, and a bit too Trumplike for my taste. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::Thus, the WP:RECENTISM that others have noted is actually intentional. Per comments in a prior RfC, Ernest stated that "{{tq|its the second term and the critique of Donald Trump has moved forward to 2025 with different points of reference, emphasis, and critiques of his rhetoric and politics}}", stating that "{{tq|Ninety percent of the prose there is from 2017 and 2018, and not from 2025}}". For instance, Ernest stated that because Trump's prior misogynistic comments about women were no longer recent, they should no longer be mentioned on the page because they were no longer a "current critique". Instead, a "pro-feminism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1278847327 edit] to the page should be added because there was a more recent source where "{{tq|Trump endorsed the pro-feminism position of his wife in his March presidential address}}".

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

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

• Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1294956390&oldid=1294944785&title=Donald_Trump this edit], I strenuously object to several aspects of it. First, it inserted the Stephanopoulos case, which is far too specific for a broad summary; the AT&T's purchase of Time Warner thing is similarly inappropriately nitty-gritty blow-by-blow stuff. It also removed much of the timeline - this article is for Trump's entire biography, so stuff like {{tq|Trump sought media attention throughout his career, maintaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. As a candidate and as president, he frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the "fake news media" and "the enemy of the people".}} is vital for a summary; those summarize the key aspects of the section's topic, which have received the most coverage in the long term. The free media coverage was also central to his early political career (and, especially, to his political practice and received massive WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so it needs a mention. Things like {{tq|by 2024, Trump repeatedly voiced support for outlawing political dissent and criticism and said that reporters should be prosecuted for not divulging confidential sources and media companies should possibly lose their broadcast licenses for unfavorable coverage of him}} are also vital aspects of his political practice and received WP:SUSTAINED massive coverage in terms of being significant aspects of his rhetoric, so they need to be part of any summary. The older version also did a better job of summarizing things like the blacklists, Trump's accusations of bias, and his efforts in that regard in his second term without diving into the unnecessarily detailed blow-by-blow in the rewrite, which was generally too WP:RECENTISM-focused on individual events. Slow down and focus on one change at a time as oppose to replacing the whole section with a rewrite - "updating" isn't really a reasonable rationale to replace so much text. If there's things to add, add them, and discuss them if they're reverted (the Stephanopoulos case was objected to repeatedly in previous discussions, stop re-adding it! It has nothing to do with political practice or rhetoric!) The rewrite was a mess of trivia that sharply lowered the section's quality and removed properly-summarized key aspects in favor of blow-by-blow trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Its just the 2 lawsuits in those last two subsections: The 'Social media' Meta lawsuit result was reverted here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1295194643], and the 'Relation to Press' lawsuit was reverted here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1295323136]. I'm stating that these two lawsuit results should not be removed from the Trump article and should be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I failed to notice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285533649&oldid=1285520193 the bold edit on April 14] that added this info to the "Health" section:{{tq2|In 2025, the White House released the results of a health examination. The report said Trump had "well controlled" high cholesterol, while "exhibit[ing] excellent cognitive and physical health" and being "fully fit to execute the duties" of the presidency. It was written by Sean Barbabella, the physician to the president.{{cite news |last1=Kim |first1=Minho |last2=Balk |first2=Tim |date=April 13, 2025 |title=White House Releases Results of Trump's Annual Physical Exam |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/us/politics/trump-physical-exam-results.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=April 14, 2025}}}}

{{talkref}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1295333937 This edit] removed it, and it's removal was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1295333937 challenged in this edit].

IMO, this falls under WP:BALASP as well as WP:NOTNEWS, i.e., {{tq|a description of isolated events, … , or news reports related to one subject [that] may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic }}. WP:PUFFERY: RS report the WH physician's summary (excellent health, active lifestyle, frequent victories in golf events, etc.) in scare quotes. Also mentioned in RS, e.g. the NYT: {{tq|The report also notes that Mr. Trump has been treated for high cholesterol, skin damages from frequent sun exposure, seasonal allergies and diverticulosis, a condition in which small pouches, called diverticula, form in the wall of the colon. He has also had cataract surgery for both of his eyes and has had a benign colon polyp, according to the report}}. That's not "excellent health", it's a 78-year-old man with excellent healthcare (someone please shoot me at 77 coz I can't afford that). The Times doesn't even mention the "well-managed hypercholesterolemia, well-managed rosacea, and actinic keratosis" that's also in [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/13/us/1.html the WH report].

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

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

• Oppose removal per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1295333937 my edit summary]. With sufficient rationalization and creative application of vague and ambiguous PAGs, we can justify inclusion or omission of just about anything. (For example, you're citing a guideline about avoiding certain words in included content and appropriating it to govern what content to include in the first place. In this case, "creative application" just means misuse.) I prefer the nice, simple, objective RS weight test. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:::I have looked at quite a few, and they're all reporting along the lines of [https://web.archive.org/web/20250428203651/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/us/politics/trump-physical-exam-results.html the NY Times article]: {{tq|The report, written by the president’s physician, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella ... says that Mr. Trump "remains in excellent health" and "exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health." It refers to Mr. Trump’s "frequent victories in golf events" as an example of his "active lifestyle" contributing to his physical and mental well-being.}} (The archived version shows a gigantic part of the Barbabella's report in the middle of the article, instead of [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/13/us/1.html the link] to the report.) The outlier is [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-health-report-notes-his-frequent-victories-in-golf.html the Intelligencer article] which sums up Barbabella's report thusly: {{tq|So ultimately, this latest physical was totally normal for Trump, which is to say kind of weird for anyone else. Nothing to see here!}} We don't usually include Trump's hyperbole, so why include hyperbole by proxy? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Former_Guy&redirect=no The Former Guy] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#The Former Guy}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Background for others: I added a sentence ("Trump pursued a protectionist economic policy involving sweeping tariffs on nearly all U.S. imports") [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296082937&oldid=1296074119 here] that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296198005&oldid=1296196324 reverted] as a generalization. I was surprised, but after re-reading the article saw a similar statement under "foreign policy": "Trump's economic policies have been described as protectionist, with Trump imposing tariffs on most countries, including large tariffs on major trading partners China, Canada, and Mexico."

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

So questions for debate:

1. Is it a generalization to describe Trump's economic policy as protectionist? Multiple RSs support this: [https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-liberation-day-tariffs-protectionism-82d0aa3a WSJ], [https://www.ft.com/content/311cb6fd-b6bb-42cf-a19f-d9bf2e89d9a6 Financial Times], [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/inflection-points/why-the-markets-keep-getting-trump-wrong/ Atlantic Council], [https://english.elpais.com/economy-and-business/2025-02-05/trump-takes-his-protectionist-approach-even-further-this-time.html El Pais]

2. Should tariffs be mentioned under domestic policy, foreign policy, or both? Currently, tariffs have yet to have notable domestic impact ([https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariffs-inflation-federal-reserve-rcna213288 MSNBC], [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/06/05/trumps-tariffs-have-so-far-caused-little-inflation Economist]) but are expected to have some in the future, dependent on what the ultimate tariff levels are.

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

:# I don't think it's a generalization in this context.

:# Tariffs fall under foreign policy, even if they have domestic impact they are still considered foreign policy.

:# The crash could certainly be mentioned as a result of the tariffs being enforced.

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

• That's all very general and I'm not sure that this is not a forum topic rather than a Trump edit question. The Trump edit which you mention on 'Liberation Day' was reverted by Space4T on the basis of being overly general. At present its not clear how much traction 'Liberation Day' has had; therefor it seems Sapce4T has reverted. Wikipedia's Tariff article states that a tariff is a domestically applied levy or taxation upon foreign goods entering the country; that emphasizes the Domestic aspects of such potential edits. The Foreign policy aspect of such edits usually imply that the foreign importer may also may their own tariffs applied against the nation to which they are sending goods; that invites negotiation with foreign countries to decide on the best compromise of mutually levied tariffs which makes it foreign policy. In the absence of presenting specific examples for each of your outlined topics, then it seems that this discussion is overly theoretical for general discussion on the Trump Talk page. Individual tariff edits should be discussed on the basis of the RS being used to assess if they are domestic or foreign in their orientation to the Trump article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks @ErnestKrause. I don't have a specific wording in mind, but thought it would be best to build consensus on whether it would be better discussed under foreign or domestic policy and then adjust the wording accordingly. For example under domestic it would probably be related to fears of inflation, but under foreign it would be related to strain on foreign relationships.
• :Currently, we have very similar wording under foreign: {{tq|"Trump's economic policies have been described as protectionist, with Trump imposing tariffs on most countries, including large tariffs on major trading partners China, Canada, and Mexico."}} - so if this is too general, we could tighten the wording (although personally I think it's fine).
• :If it's helpful, I think the content should be moved under "foreign" and read something like "Trump pursued a protectionist economic policy and, on April 2, 2025, announced broad tariffs including a 10% minimum on nearly all imports to the United States. The announcement triggered a market crash and retaliation from major trading partners." satkara❈talk 23:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• IMO all of those sections should be excerpts from the sub articles. Any issues over what should be in the lead/"excerpted section" of those articles should be discussed and dealt with at those articles. If something is so important about it that it should be covered here, then it should also be in the lead (which is usually the excerpted paragraph/s) at the target article. If it's not important enough to be in the lead at the sub-article, then it's not important enough to be covered here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I like the idea, but the leads would probably end up too detailed for an article about Trump as a person vs his presidency. satkara❈talk 23:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::This article is about Trump the person, not just his presidenc(ies). If all you're trying to do is make this article about his presidencies and/or portions of them, then you're violating NPOV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, that's what I meant: this article is about Trump the person, so the level of detail in the leads of the various sub-articles would likely be too much. satkara❈talk 01:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Excerpts don't have to be the whole lead section. They can be just one or two paragraphs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The material being discussed (I removed the Wikilinks for better readability):

::Longstanding content in Donald Trump#Domestic policy, 2025–present: {{tq2|His announcement of global tariffs on imports in April 2025 triggered a stock market crash.{{Cite news |last=Sherter |first=Alain |date=April 5, 2025 |title=Stock market rout deepens as Dow plunges more than 2,200 points and Nasdaq enters bear market |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dow-jones-stocks-today-djia-trump-tariffs/ |access-date=April 10, 2025 |work=CBS News}}}} Boldly edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296082937&oldid=1296079364 here] to read {{tq2|Trump pursued a protectionist economic policy involving sweeping tariffs on nearly all U.S. imports.{{Cite news |last=Chávez |first=Steff |last2=Politi |first2=James |last3=Williams |first3=Aime |date=2025-04-03 |title=Donald Trump erects a protectionist barrier around America |url=https://www.ft.com/content/311cb6fd-b6bb-42cf-a19f-d9bf2e89d9a6 |access-date=2025-06-17 |work=Financial Times}} In April 2025, he triggered a stock market crash following a global tariff announcement.{{Cite news |last=Sherter |first=Alain |date=April 5, 2025 |title=Stock market rout deepens as Dow plunges more than 2,200 points and Nasdaq enters bear market |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dow-jones-stocks-today-djia-trump-tariffs/ |access-date=April 10, 2025 |work=CBS News}}}} Reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1296196324 here], then boldly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1296198005 removed here], removal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296225646&oldid=1296201481 challenged here] (repeated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296356442&oldid=1296355883 here] because of 3RR).

{{talkref}}

::Longstanding content in Donald Trump#Foreign policy, 2025–present: {{tq2|Trump's economic policies have been described as protectionist,{{cite news |last1=Douglas |first1=Jason |last2=Fairless |first2=Tom |date=March 24, 2025 |title=Trade War Explodes Across World at Pace Not Seen in Decades |url=https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trade-war-explodes-across-world-at-pace-not-seen-in-decades-0b6d6513?mod=hp_lead_pos7 |access-date=March 25, 2025 |website=The Wall Street Journal |quote=Economists and historians say the flurry of recent moves suggest the world could be heading toward the largest, broadest surge in protectionist activity since the U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 touched off a global retreat behind tariff walls that lasted until after World War II.}} with Trump imposing tariffs on most countries, including large tariffs on major trading partners China, Canada, and Mexico.{{cite news |last1=Swanson |first1=Ana |last2=Austen |first2=Ian |last3=Romero |first3=Simon |author-link3=Simon Romero |title=Trump's Tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China Snap Into Effect |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/business/economy/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=March 4, 2025 |date=March 4, 2025}} Economists argued that the administration misunderstood the relationship between trade deficits and tariffs, using flawed assumptions.{{Cite web |last=Weissmann |first=Jordan |date=April 6, 2025 |title=The White House cited these economists to justify its tariffs. They aren't thrilled. |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-white-house-cited-these-economists-to-justify-its-tariffs-they-arent-thrilled-193615537.html |website=Yahoo! Finance}}}}

{{talkref}}

:IMO, the text in "Foreign policy, 2025–present" covers the current state of affairs adequately, no mention in "Domestic policy, 2025–present" necessary. Stock market crash: on second thought no objections to removing it. That seems to have been the headline of the day, in hindsight just another dip in the current stock market roller coaster ride. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Seems like we have a consensus. I'll consolidate under "Foreign Policy"! satkara❈talk 20:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

My MOS:LINKCLARITY [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296253069&oldid=1296237747 edit] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1296355883&oldid=1296355474 reverted], saying that the manual of style does not apply. The manual of style says, “The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context.”

Therefore, I think “Trump began his second presidency with the pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants” more closely follow MOS than “Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters”.

Can someone please explain why the Manual of style does not apply to the Donald Trump article? @Space4Time3Continuum2x Wafflefrites (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|A link's visible label does not need to match the exact title of the article being linked}} (MOS:EGG). MOS:LINKCLARITY would apply if the link said, e.g., pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters because then the reader would expect a link to Pardon. As it is, the link takes readers exactly where they expect to be taken, the article on Trump "grant[ing] clemency to more than 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the January 6 United States Capitol attack". Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's pretty much what I was about to say. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::20px Great minds think alike! Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If only! :D ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the explanation. Hmm.. I still think my edit is better since it follows MOS:LINKCLARITY, MOS:EGG and MOS:MORELINKWORDS. But I see there is an ongoing RfC about whether the article link should be included at all, so this discussion may or may not be productive depending on the outcome of the RfC. @Bill Williams Wafflefrites (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the problem is that whereas the title of that article doesn't include the number, the 1,500+ is important here for this article. Just saying that he pardoned January 6 defendants/rioters would not make clear the true depth of these massive pardons, which aside for like half a dozen of them just wiped the slate completely clean indiscriminately, regardless of what they did on that day. If he had, for example, pardoned a couple hundred people that were much less involved than the ones he didn't pardon? It probably wouldn't even merit mentioning here imo. In other words, the whole reason it's being mentioned is because of how wide sweeping and indiscriminate the pardons were.{{pb}}I'd be open to considering alternate wording, but I can't think of any way myself - and changing it to just be the title of that article is not appropriate imo. In any case, LINKCLARITY is not violated by the current wording - if you look at the two examples given there, it's clear that's more akin to an EGG violation. The current wording here also isn't an EGG violation - anyone clicking on that link would expect to be taken to the article about "pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters". There's no confusion over what that refers to at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also well said. I don't need to spend my time crafting good comments—I can just wait for somebody else to do it and then agree with them. I'm all about saving time since I don't have a lot of it left. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|the 1,500+ is important here for this article. Just saying that he pardoned January 6 defendants/rioters would not make clear the true depth of these massive pardons, which aside for like half a dozen of them just wiped the slate completely clean indiscriminately, regardless of what they did on that day.}} Amen, but nevertheless there's an open RfC proposing removal of the massive slate wiping from the lead. Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I've asked this before. Is it possible for the lead's final paragraph wording to be changed to MAGA movement? Wikipedia appears to defend the use of the term Trumpism, as this article does. Google Trends shows quite the opposite. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Trumpism,MAGA&hl=en-US The blue line for Trumpism] is nearly flat. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::I would be bold and fix this but what to do about this? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As ErnestK pointed out, the article doesn't mention MAGA — MOS:LEADNO applies ({{tq|Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article}}. The three cited sources that do aren't talking about the Trumpism/MAGA movement. [https://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-what-trump-was-doing-as-his-mob-attacked-the-capitol-on-jan-6-2022-7 Business Insider] mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an an article about Trump's actions/nonaction while the "MAGA mob" was attacking Congress. [https://www.reuters.com/default/donald-trump-staffs-up-second-term-only-maga-loyalists-need-apply-2024-11-11/ Reuters] also mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an article about Trump appointing only "MAGA loyalists" in his second term. The third cite, a [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/3/113 2021 Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias], is one of seven sources for this sentence: {{tq|His political base has been compared to a cult of personality}} which doesn't add a label to the cultlike behavior. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also, it's [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/21/trump-products-presidency-as-a-brand Trump-branding] of a term [https://www.si.edu/object/button-ronald-reagan-1980%3Anmah_522618 first used by Reagan] (LMAGA doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). See the RfC of another Trump brand. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::* Just Wikipedia acting smarter-than-thou. Reagan had no monopoly on MAGA, nor did the American colonists have a monopoly on Tea Party. Your argument escapes me—citation of three sources that don't mention Trumpism. Sort of like this article with the sum total of information amounting to this prose: {{tq|"Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism."}}

::::* WP:COMMONNAME ought to prevail here: {{tq|"Wikipedia...generally prefers the name that is most commonly used..."}} -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I know this has been debated before, but Grover Cleveland and Frances Cleveland have small notes in their articles about serving nonconsecutive terms. Is it all right if we include a note in this article about President Cleveland? And1987 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I was literally thinking the same thing when I saw this — maybe we should place a note about Grover Cleveland in the "2024 election" section. Currently, the Grover Cleveland article only mentions Donald Trump in a footnote placed at the end of the "Election of 1892" section. GN22 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why we would need a note. The dates given already make it blindingly obvious. Are people really that stupid? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think the question is whether to include a note in this article about President Cleveland also serving nonconsecutive terms. GN22 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Opposed. Utter trivia not relevant to Trump.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I noted in my most recent reversion, this is not a history of the U.S. presidency. So we include that Trump was the second, but who was the first is irrelevant to this Trump biography. People come here to read about Trump; I'm fairly confident that very few of them care two whits about who was the first. Thus, the Grover bit is just clutter that gets in their way. It only serves to lower the signal-to-noise ratio. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump attacked Iran Korziox (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:That would go in its own article. And it did go there, actually. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:The strike should probably be in this article to. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose any consideration for about three weeks. It's not a newspaper. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Elaborate Korziox (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure. The more common method is to include now, then keep updating while the situation develops, often once or twice a day. That's an online newspaper, not an encyclopedia. I think it makes sense to give the situation time to develop (I suggest three weeks), then talk about what to include, if anything. Anything said during the three weeks would be wasted time, since the situation has not developed. Obviously, "the situation has developed" is a vague and fuzzy concept, but three weeks is a lot better than what we're doing now.{{pb}}BTW, I also think this would help with a lot of Trump-related news. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::A three-week wait still seems excessive Korziox (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::How much wait would you suggest? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I suggest a one-week wait Korziox (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'll support that. Any wait is an improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Great Korziox (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wait at least a week. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::At the very least. For some reason, those that start wars think they will end in a week when they commonly last years. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but here with a man who may well forget the USA is now war, by the time I finish the sentence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've added the Trump quote of the military strike on Iran into the article. Its already in multiple sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nice Korziox (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

It's as yet unclear what - besides Trump's grand announcement - makes this event different from the other times the U.S. supported Israel by, e.g., bombing locations in Yemen and Syria. I reverted per WP:NOTNEWS: {{tq|routine news coverage of announcements, events, …, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. }} The news is only a few hours old. It's too early to even "consider[] the enduring notability of" the event, and Trump is not a reliable source. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Military strikes against another nation is an act of war and needs to go into the article since Trump is already making public comments about it. By your reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor, or its equivalent, should not go into the article until a week passes by; that doesn't quite work as reasoning behind timely inclusion of international acts of war. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::We already have the breaking-news article, American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Do the cited sources say that {{tq|the United States joined the Iran–Israel war}}? Pearl Harbor was followed up by a declaration of war and a war, easy to see with 84 years hindsight. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:This event is clearly notable Korziox (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Space, you shouldn’t have reverted the edit, ErnestKrause is completely right. Korziox (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Consensus did not exist at this time. You yourself agreed to one week. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I’d also consider a shorter period Korziox (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::The criterion for this article is enduring notability for Trump's biography. ErnestK boldly added the info, and I challenged it — discussion to be continued here, preferably in one to three weeks, minimum. Or two. Probably two. Or Wednesday. Nobody knows. We'll see what happens. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)