Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

50. Superseded by #70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

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

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

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

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

Internal consistency

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking lead size

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

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142

---

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164

---

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 47 + 84 + 155 + 135 + 71

---

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 44 + 82 + 162 + 147 + 26

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 44 + 79 + 154 + 141 + 57

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 44 + 81 + 154 + 178 + 45

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 138 + 45

---

04 Mar 2025 — 457 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 128 + 53

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 128 + 43

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 40 + 87 + 147 + 129 + 43

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 40 + 87 + 147 + 128 + 43

---

01 Apr 2025 — 458 = 40 + 87 + 171 + 114 + 46

---

Tracking article size

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

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

---

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

---

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

---

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

18 Feb 2025 — 11,180 – 339,836 – 247

25 Feb 2025 — 11,213 – 343,445 – 242

---

04 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

---

01 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

---

Article possibility for downsizing by about 52Kb in system size

Downsizing for the Political practice and Rhetoric section

The main space for the Donald Trump article is still about 350Kb in system space which seems rather large. A previous attempt to condense the Rhetoric section to save space was not successful. Another option is to keep the entire section with all of its subsections and Fork and merge the material from main article into Rhetoric article by CWW. I've already done this with the removal of no material from that section, and the system space saving could be about 52KB all at once in the main article. I'm suggesting that now that the material has been forked and merged into the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article, that it now makes sense to delete all of the subsections from that section in the main article, and leave only the 2 preface sections at the start in order to link to the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article from the main page. Since this preserves all of the material in all of those subsections, then perhaps this option to downsize the main article for Trump might move forward if there is support to go forward. Posting here for editors comments for support or criticism. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You have my full support. This article is bloated beyond belief. Riposte97 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why conserving system size should be a concern of ours. The readable prose size of the article, the metric which actually matters for the readers and according to WP:ARTICLESIZE, is perfectly reasonable at 70 kB (11182 words). — Goszei (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Goszei. Thanks to aggressive trimming, the article is down 29% since the election, as measured by readable prose word count. At Tracking article size, I'm tracking "Wiki markup size in bytes" (what you're calling "system size") mostly as a matter of tradition and BTW/FYI, not because it's significant. It could easily be dispensed with. IMO, further trimming should be a matter of proper cross-article structure (i.e., summary style), not article size. Obviously, this also applies to how we accept/modify/reject BOLD new article content. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreement with Riposte. Calculation of 29% is as usual accurate as done by Mandruss, but the question is now about whether the main biography for Trump gains anything by fully duplicating the material as it is already fully merged and contained in the article for Rhetoric of Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric. I'm not sure that I see why the full duplication of the exact same material on the biography page, in the section titled "Political practice and rhetoric" gains anything when it is already available, word for word, on the Rhetoric article as I just linked it above. The current size of the main article for Trump is still at 350Kb which seems to be needlessly large and sprawling in size. Full duplication of material already fully contained in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article seems unneeded and it could be removed without any loss to the quality of the main biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Size is not excessive for a 78-year-old man who has been president twice after a long, controversial, and well-covered business career. Similar arguments, minus the word "twice", were being made when the article was considerably larger. Otherwise, I think you're describing summary style, which I have already supported. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The Rhetoric section is written in summary style of the many child articles on Donald Trump with appropriate links to them, not just the Rhetoric article itself as some suggest. It is not a "full duplication", but a highly abridged summary of the main points of several other relevant child articles. Removing the section entirely would be the wrong way to approach this. Goszei has elaborated on this further, but the readable prose of this article is at a reasonable 70 kB (11182 words), so removing content due to system size concerns rather than article size is, in my view, mistaken. BootsED (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

For Mandruss above, the featured article for Ronald Reagan who was also 78 years old in office is only 171Kb in system size, while the featured article for George Washington in 141Kb in system size; that does not appear to justify the Donald Trump article being at about 350Kb in its current system size, roughly twice the size of the Reagan article on Wikipedia. For BootsED, thanks for the comment, but the issue is not with child articles though it is with the exact same material in the Rhetoric section of this main Trump article being presented at the same time on the separate Wikipedia article for "Rhetoric of Donald Trump" here: [1]. Why keep the exact same material in two places on Wikipedia at the same time? I'm still in agreement with Riposte above that the main Trump article is just too large for comfortable reading at this time from top to bottom: even a good reader requires about 50-60 minutes to read it all the way through which is above the Wikipedia recommendations for article length. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The discrepancy in system size is explained pretty much entirely by difference in the number of references. Reagan has 10093 words and 436 references, Washington has 9386 words and 353 references, and Trump has 11182 words and 685 references. A much higher proportion of Trump's are unique web citations, as opposed to shorter sfns. There's nothing wrong with an article that is extensively cited, like this one; it shouldn't be treated as something to be fixed. Focus on the text size when making critiques. — Goszei (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The Trump article is already ten percent larger that the Reagan article, and that's without all the additions on the way for Trump second term. The Trump article is just too large for many of the readers who link to the article from Google and want to read a normal Wikipedia article in 30 minutes or less. Currently, the read time from top to bottom is about 50-60 minutes which is too long. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Imo the point about system size is a red herring. The prose content of this page is too large. So even if the system size point doesn't stand up, the prescription that the rhetoric section should be trimmed (or indeed, as the exact same content is preserved elsewhere, gutted with a machete), stands. Riposte97 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've said. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If Mandruss is in agreement with Riposte97, and I am in agreement with Riposte97, then does that mean that there's sufficient agreement to move forward on this trimming to the Political practice and rhetoric section as discussed above? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess that supporters will say yes and opposers will say no. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

As a supporter…yes. Riposte97 (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

As another supporter...yes... plus one. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Per the only-an-essay WP:SILENT, I would take two more days of silence as a green light. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I would have to disagree on this. The sections that are being discussed to be trimmed are sections that have been heavily discussed and included on this page over the years and have already been trimmed extensively. They also are some of the more contentious parts of the page, such as Trump's propensity for falsehoods or racially charged rhetoric, so removing and trimming mention of them deserve greater scrutiny. Article byte size concerns being used to remove this contentious material over summary style concerns is the wrong way to deal with this.

I will reiterate Goszei, that "Reagan has 10093 words and 436 references, Washington has 9386 words and 353 references, and Trump has 11182 words and 685 references." Material should be removed based on word count and article length, where 15,000 words is considered "long", not 11,000. There are many other pages on Wikipedia that are 11,000 words long. I have never seen "page bytes" being used as a justification for removing words. If anything, the high byte size from the used references are a testament to the higher sourcing and reference standards on this page, and should be celebrated, not condemned. BootsED (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

On February 19, ErnestKrause copied the entire Donald Trump political practice and rhetoric section and pasted it into the Rhetoric of Donald Trump page. I don't agree with this, as a lot of the content that was copied does not belong in the Rhetoric page and would be better served under the more appropriate Racial views of Donald Trump page or False or misleading statements by Donald Trump page and ecetera.

This shouldn't be used as a reason to delete the entire section from this page and hide it on a less viewed sub-article where the content really does not belong. Some of the content in this section was the result of several talk page discussions on this page over the years. Removing everything as Ernest suggests is the wrong answer. BootsED (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would add that I think people are getting confused and thinking because the section is overall called "Political practice and rhetoric" everything should be in the "rhetoric" page. This section is a summary of several child pages, not just the rhetoric page. The title has no relation to it. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi BootsED; My original comment and suggestion was different from what you just stated when I said above that: "...leave ...the 2 preface sections (paragraphs) at the start in order to link to the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article from the main page." In addition to leaving the preface, I would also support keeping all of the links to the sibling articles which you have mentioned. The difficulty is that the Trump article is already 10% larger than the completed Ronald Reagan article, and the Trump article is still growing since the 2nd presidency section seems to gain new material every day. By shortening the Rhetoric section, then the editors have more room for expanding these other parts of the Trump article. I'm supporting Riposte97 on these trims to that Rhetoric section toward the bottom of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ernest, so yes, I saw that you wanted to keep the top 2 preface paragraphs, but you also said that "it now makes sense to delete all of the subsections from that section in the main article". Keeping the links to the sibling articles in that section at the top would just create a sea of blue.

Again, I strongly oppose removing these sections from the page. They have been there for years, are heavily trimmed and abridged sections of existing child articles, and removing them would negatively impact the page by removing pertinent information about the topic. A page about Donald Trump should have a section about his frequent falsehoods or racial rhetoric. It's a very notable part of him, and the section that exists now is a highly abridged summary of the False or misleading statements by Donald Trump page. I don't see how this section can be trimmed any further than it already is.

Byte sizes/system size of the page shouldn't be used a a reason to remove content, and the "10% larger than Ronald Reagan" in byte size is primarily due to more references being used here, not the length of the page itself. The page has already had massive trimming in word count over the past few months and is now in a good size and shape.

Honestly, my personal belief is that in four years, this page will probably hover around 13k words, which would still put it under the 15,000 word maximum guideline. The page for Jimmy Carter is at 15,309 words, Richard Nixon is at 14,015 words, Abraham Lincoln is at 13,718 words, Jesus is at 13,400 words, and this article is at 11,214 words. Removing more at this point is premature. BootsED (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi BootsED; It's nice that you looked all those statistics up, but it seems that the other editors like CNC below and others are going in the other direction. The section you are defending on Rhetoric is mostly referencing material from the first presidential term and not the second. Possibly a better place for that material would be in the 1st term for Donald Trump article. But more than that, CNC right below this section is also making a fairly cogent case that the Business career section and the Real Estate discussion may also be too long. It seems like the length issues with the current Donald Trump article are only getting worse by keeping the article very long, and that the article really needs these trims. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

CNC saying the business section needs to be trimmed has no bearing on the rhetoric section. The reason it's mostly about his first term is because his second term has only been a month? Once more information about his second term comes out this will be updated.

As I've stated before, there really isn't any length issue at the moment. The article as it stands is at a lower word count than several other presidents. Susan has been doing a good job removing excess citations, which I think can help your goal of removing excess system size, but there's really no need for further cuts to this section as it stands based on length concerns. If you'd like to discuss what specifically you would like to see trimmed, rather than saying it all needs to go, I would be amenable for a conversation to that end. BootsED (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with BootsED that this section represents years of negotiated editing. The fork (now reverted) to Rhetoric of Donald Trump didn't give me confidence in giving a few people license to make massive cuts. I prefer to see the cuts you have in mind discussed first on this talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pulling my support per subsequent discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that the section is bit excessive and needs to be trimmed. But obviously any major cut should be brought here to the talk page before being added to the article. DecafPotato (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi DecafPotato; There are two versions of a trimmed version for the 6 subsections which you mention; one is a two paragraph version which is here (under its own section): [2], and also a three paragraph version which I had placed on one of the editor's Talk page (Rolling's) here: [3]. Does either one give a possible starting point? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I'm out of sync. Mercieca's introduction lists six strategies that Trump uses: argumentum ad populum, American exceptionalism, paralipsis, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad baculum, and reification . I never studied logic so am not the person to introduce this, but any section we title "rhetoric" that doesn't mention them has overlooked the obvious source. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing out of sync, though I think these are two different questions. That section on Rhetoric was not based on the 2020 Mercieca book; it was based upon the six sections of Rhetoric which were studied for the Trump article by previous editors since the 1st presidency and grouped together as covering a coherent topic on Rhetoric. The current discussion is to determine if its best to keep those 6 subsections representing Rhetoric in the 1st presidency together "as is" without change, or, to summarize them into a more manageable size (a 2-3 paragraph summary, for example). Previously, just above you seemed to be opposed to the idea of just moving them in their current form to either the Rhetoric article or the First presidency article for Trump which would have preserved them all as written. The current discussion raised by DecafPotato does not appear to be about the Mercieca book. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Historically, we needed somewhere to keep all the articles saying 'Trump's rhetoric on x and y is unprecedented'. During his first term, thousands of such articles were published. We should be looking to pare this down to the truly important points. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Needs to stay until conclusion of RfC. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Then pin it, otherwise it may be auto-archived again after a week. I did so. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Part Two of downsizing Rhetoric section: 3 paragraph version

@ErnestKrause: I think of those two I like the three-paragraph version more and would support its addition to the article. Semi-relatedly, I do believe that the section as it exists currently is probably in need of a very significant remaking: It fails to discuss key parts of Trump's rhetoric — as SusanLesch has pointed out — and in general feels rather arbitrary in terms of what's included. It has a pretty unclear scope, trying to simultaneously cover Trump's rhetoric and practice, his political ideology, his personal views, the creation and effects of Trumpism, and both his opinion of and lawsuits against the media. There's definitely a lot more to be done in fully fixing it but I think the three-paragraph draft is a good start and serves as a good baseline to implement right now, especially because given the contentious nature of this article as a whole and this section in particular more major structural changes will probably need to go through lengthy discussions for consensus. DecafPotato (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll second Decaf. We need to start somewhere.

• Can we please include one citation in place of multiple cites? (Some strings of two or three citations are absurd.)
• Can the prose mention MAGA?
• Why omit Trump's attacks on women? The way I understand it, I have two options:

  Nasty   Dumb

• What happened to Truthfulness?

We don't have many alternate words for rhetoric. May I suggest oratory? "Rhetoric" has been defined since at least Roman times but is never addressed in our article.

-SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

From both of your comments from DecafPotato and SusanLeasch, I'm pretty much in support of both your statements. I'll post the three paragraph version here and possibly you can both start to bring in your edits one by one depending on your edit priorities for making the section better. Here is the 3 paragraph version for edits and critique. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, I have no knowledge of rhetoric. You have my reaction. I have no interest in editing this section. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi DecafPotato, from your previous comments about adjusting the wording for the three paragraph version, could you bring in some of your edits at this time for possible improvements? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Political practice and rhetoric

Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump

Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump

See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump

Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. Trump's political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism.

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him. Before and throughout his presidency, Trump promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama birtherism, the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory movement QAnon, the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections.As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness. Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. In June 2017, the White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. 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. In response, he tweeted that social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". In the days after the storming of the Capitol, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter.

Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage.The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about a hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about Trump's stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. The Atlantic characterized the suits as an intimidation tactic. By 2024, he 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. In 2024, Trump sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos said on-air that a jury had found him civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. The case was settled in December with ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, apologizing for the inaccurate claims about Trump and agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump's future presidential library.

Support for DecafPotato and SusanLesch discussion above for 3 paragraph version adjustments and enhancements. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Why no mention of Trump's misogyny or the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape? What happened to mentioning the Central Park Five? Why was his description of false statements being at 30,573 false or misleading claims at the end of his first term removed? We should certainly keep the short mention that they use the "big lie" and "firehose of falsehood" propaganda technique.

Again, I think this is not a bad option, but I don't think this is necessary at this time. The article is well below the word count of other articles on presidents. It's only at 9k words, other presidents are at 14 to 15k. Let's wait until the article gets larger before making any drastic cuts like this. BootsED (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

To SusanLesch, Riposte97 and DecafPotato; I've brought in Susan's request that both "MAGA" and "truthfulness" be brought into this 3 paragraph summary version. It looks like an improvement and I'll invite her to add more if she likes. In her words, "We need to start somewhere".ErnestKrause (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause — Yes, I think the version you have right here is good to add to the article.

And for the record, to respond to BootsED slightly above me, I don't think the Access Hollywood tape needs to be mentioned in this section but I think it absolutely should be added to the 2016 presidential campaign section. Similarly, the Central Park Five seem more relevant to the section on his early political aspirations or business career than his political practice. The exact count of false statements I think is largely irrelevant to discussion of his rhetoric. And I've no strong opinion on mentioning specific techniques. DecafPotato (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

For Mandruss: It looks like 3 editors are for this three paragraph version of the section, and one opposed. Could you mention if this version of the trimmed section works for you or not? For DecafPotato, I'm fairly sure that there is common ground for your suggestion to BootsED for those edits he wants kept in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I'm all for any trimming that gets the article closer to summary style. I don't care about the details. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you are joining in then that makes 4 editors supporting, and one opposed. Should we let it stand for another day or two before adding the trimmed version to the article to replace the old version? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You're effectively asking me for a closure, which would be improper because I'm involved. You'll have to work that out without my help. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are not "four in favor and one against", and several other editors such as Goszei have opposed this. This entire section already is in summary style, and the whole page is already well under the maximum recommended word count and is currently shorter than many other Wikipedia pages on American presidents.

I really don't know why you are so insistent on removing this entire section and creating three massive paragraphs to summarize what has already been summarized and trimmed greatly over several years. This edit will wipe away years of talk page discussion and consensus for these sections on the false premise that the page needs to be trimmed. As I've said repeatedly, this page is already smaller than several other pages on notable American presidents.

To quote myself: "The page for Jimmy Carter is at 15,309 words, Richard Nixon is at 14,015 words, Abraham Lincoln is at 13,718 words, Jesus is at 13,400 words, and this article is at 11,214 words. Removing more at this point is premature." BootsED (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The sizes of other pages is irrelevant. This article is what counts, and this article should be trimmed. Reading through it is currently extremely jarring, as flash-in-the-pan issues from up to a decade ago are given undue weight. This article must be treated as a coherent whole; allowing it to be drowned piecemeal by section is a recipe for disaster. Unless there is a strong policy basis not to continue, consensus clearly favours ErnestKrause making the change. Riposte97 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sort of needing to support Riposte97 on this question. Its definitely not a vote, and at the same time there appear to be four editors in agreement that the revised version should go into the article; that's the current consensus. Its seems that there is one hold out on this. After another day to allow for added comments, then it seems that any editor can bring the new revised version into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a discussion between a handful of editors who refuse to engage in policy-based discussions and simply say, "yes, but the page needs to be trimmed." I have established how the page does not need to be trimmed any further, and how a mass deletion of this section will negatively impact this page. The only response I have gotten to my points is, "yes, but the page needs to be trimmed." I guarantee that as soon as you do a mass deletion, other editors who have not been paying attention to this section will immediately contest this decision. If you want to mass delete this section (which isn't even the largest section on the page), you will likely need an actual RfC. BootsED (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

So because I've shown how Wikipedia policy on article size does not support your position, it does not matter anymore because you personally believe the section isn't written correctly despite dozens of discussions over the years about its content. Gotcha. BootsED (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I note that "MAGA" at present is entirely missing from this article (although in the separate article on "Trumpism," the two terms are said to be synonymous), so this proposed sentence in the paragraphs above would be the article's entire explanation of that concept or movement or whatever it is:

"Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner." NME Frigate (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi NME Frigate; That sentence was added when it was requested by SusanLesch above in her comment. If you feel adding another sentence about it is useful, then she would probably like to see it added if you can do it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to address that without rewriting at least the whole first paragraph. Ideally "MAGA" would be introduced in the first paragraph, e.g., changing "Trumpism" to "Trumpism or MAGA," but it seems impossible to do so without noting that MAGA stands for "Make America Great Again," and that phrase just reeks of propaganda. But explaining it makes the paragraph even longer. NME Frigate (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if it adds clarity to the summary, then it should be useful to try. SusanLesch is the one that thought of adding a MAGA comment there and maybe you or someone could ask her if she has some ideas on how best to do what you are requesting. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. A three-paragraph giant wall of text with nine main, further, and see also articles at the top — who's supposed to read that and figure out what's what? And exactly what are you planning to trim and why? You can start with an explanation for removing the paragraph on Trump's history of belittling women and the accusations of sexual misconduct. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. I'm still supporting SusanLesch on this issue when she states "We need to start somewhere" in keeping the article up to date and useful. The article has moved forward to 2025 and you seem to want to repeat material from 2016 and 2017 because of edit discussions from 7 years ago. Time to trim and condense some of that old material and update it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

What material? The material is still relevant. I think this three paragraph version is a wall of text that is already presented better with better formatting (and illustrative images) as it exists currently. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The 'material' in the Rhetoric section from 2016 and 2017 is mostly eight years old; it was fine when it was written, though now the top criticisms and critiques of Trump have moved forward. SusanLesch's comment that "We need to start somewhere" to bring things up to date is a point well taken, and a condensed summarizing of material from eight years ago would be an improvement to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, what material? It simply makes sense that the material that exists would be from his first presidency as his second presidency is barely over a month old now. Also, a lot of material is not from 2016 or 2017. In the first paragraph of the section itself, we have sources from 2025, 2024, 2022, 2021, 2020, and 2019. A lot of high-quality scholarly articles will also be slightly older, as they take time to write and go under review. Replacing "older" high-quality sources with "newer" low-quality sources is not the correct way forwards. BootsED (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic

You know what, ErnestKrause? I am tired of you using my name as if it were yours to use. I withdrew from this discussion at 18:36 on March 2. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Susan, comments like that are neither productive nor appropriate. Ernest is making productive contributions, and for what it's worth, trying to give effect to something you expressed support for. Please review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Riposte97 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Notes

Needs to stay until conclusion of RfC. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Then pin it, otherwise it may be auto-archived again after a week. I did so. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Summarizing Business career section

The main violation of summary style guidelines is the Business career section, as there are section summaries which are not summaries of child articles, ie the entirety of Real estate and it's sub-sections. If it were due this much content, there would be a child article, but instead business career is only around 6,500 words total, and fundamentally is just another child article. It's also not that popular one either based on views, nor due for such extensive coverage per weight, and thus creates an unncessary WP:FALSEBALANCE (unnecessary because there is a child article already, so this indepth content isn't located here out of necessity). If someone were to calculate the ratio between the word count for other articles, and the summaries they have here, it'd confirm this also. Generally while 11,000 words isn't bad given the number of child articles there are to summarise, it's still WP:TOOBIG and could be better. There is otherwise only one other section that I came across (aside from real estate) which is also an undue summary given the lack of child article, but I'll let another editor figure that out. This is definitely a good sign that the article is generally well summarized, from a perspective of structure at last. CNC (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

For CommunityNotesContributor; If you are thinking of attracting other editors to your view here, then you might give some details. I mean there are child articles for many of these: Business career of Donald Trump, Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia, and Tax returns of Donald Trump. Are you thinking of only doing something for Real Estate, or, for the full Business career and Media career sections? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically looking for support, my intention was to engage in enforrcing editing guidelines as of March 1, 2025, ie one week from this comment. My credentials are helping to further summarize Gaza war and otherwise successfully culling the over blown Elon Musk in half, so I am no stranger to CTOP here. I am merely giving the opportunity for other editors to engage in trimming or summarizing prior to enforcement editing guidelines. That might sound blunt, but that's just how it is. CNC (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning a few more child and related articles: The Trump Organization, Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump, Donald J. Trump Foundation, numerous articles about individual projects linked inline, such as Trump Tower, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), and Donald Trump and golf, just to name a few. Did you read any of them? I think that what we mention about Trump's multiple and diverse business activities over more than 50 years is due in this article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Not worth my time sorry, but with trimming fat and summarizing child articles properly there would be more room for child article summaries fundamentally. I hope that helps answer your query. CNC (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Not worth my time — well, O.K. then. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean this in the sense of attempting to summarise the business section, but not creating child article summaries for multiple other subjects. Ideally someone else would be able/willing to do this once there is space available. Summarising one section is more than enough work without creating more summaries (that I'd say are relatively due beyond inline referencing). In general a handful of summaries would be much better than undue content here. CNC (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

All of the subsections there are four paragraphs or less; any thoughts of how to initiate the summaries process. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The article "Donald Trump and golf" is a violation of WP:FRINGE and should be deleted. Kamiép861890 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Deaths from PEPFAR funding freeze

We've had warnings for weeks that deaths would happen. This is a 24 hour notice of my intent to restore the addition of the number of deaths caused by DOGE fooling around with PEPFAR. (It was reverted.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment The edit summary on the revert was unnecessarily harsh. The Independent and others have an article with the same figures. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies I did not see this. I have once again removed the challenged content. The Independent article cites the same dodgy internet tracker, which is not an RS by any stretch. It also clearly identifies it as an advocacy group, so probably not NPOV either. Besides, the tracker claims these are forward estimates with certain important assumptions built in, not people actually estimated to have died as of this date. Trying to add this into the article is not something I'd expect from an editor of your calibre, frankly. Riposte97 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is not WP:DUE at this time. While reliable sources are talking about this estimate in some cases, they are not talking about it as if it's true. It may be merited for the DOGE article, for example, but only as a very attributed claim that is not treated as truth and clearly identifies its origins as an advocacy group. So yes, this should not be re-added until there is actual concrete information to add, and even then, it should be added to an appropriate sub article with strong sourcing and wording before it's even considered to be added here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

My mistake was omitting that these numbers refer to sub-Saharan Africa.

Riposte, regarding the tracker's assumptions, "The impact counters have been redefined in light of continuous peer review, now reflecting the total number of deaths that have occurred to date, rather than the anticipated lifetime impact of a disruption."

berchanhimez, it would help if your long link to summary style pointed to what it is you are trying to say. Best I can figure, you meant WP:SYNC and not WP:SS overall. Thank you, I agree and added this to the second presidency article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The HIV consortium tracker is a reliable source per WP:RSN. This discussion is moot if you're going to yank it as "overdetail". So this is a preemptive ping to ask if you can approve the sentence. I think so much loss of life belongs in this article. I addressed berchanhimez's main point and ping Riposte97 as a courtesy. The addition is the {{tq}} and belongs at the end of §Mass terminations of federal employees. The sentence is very complicated. Can you improve it?

Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID. For the one month after Trump's USAID funding freeze in January 2025, the HIV Modelling Consortium estimated the HIV-related death toll in sub-Saharan Africa at 14,872 adults and 1,582 children. After a restraining order expired in late February, Trump put 2,000 employees on administrative leave.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

lets wait and see how many deaths there actually are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't have that luxury. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes we do, I am really unsure what you think this will achieve. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem to think that it's possible to come up with an actual count. It isn't. Excess deaths are always estimates, as can be seen from RS discussions of excess deaths; here's an example discussing excess deaths from COVID, but you'll find the same thing with literature on other kinds of excess death (e.g., from chronic diseases). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is speculation, we do not deal in speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We deal with what reliable sources say, including estimates. We have an article on excess mortality, and a search on "excess deaths" pulls up over 300 articles where we source statements about various kinds of excess deaths to RSs. You seem to be confusing estimates and speculation. They are not the same thing. There are statements about estimates in almost 60K articles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But these are not reporting actual deaths, but deaths that might happen (not might have happened). Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are projections for excess deaths. We include projections in a variety of articles, here's one example, here's another, and here's a third. Do you object to the projections about GDP, human population growth, and climate change too? The issue with these specific projections are whether the source is an RS and whether the content is due, not with them being projections per se. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a BLP, that is not about deaths. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That it's a BLP does not preclude content about deaths. Putin's article, for example, discusses both notable individuals killed and the large number of soldiers killed in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Arguably there should be a sentence in Trump's article about how his poor handling of COVID led to more deaths than would have occurred had he handled it well; I may look up a good source for that and add it. It's clear that you object to the content. I don't. At this point, I doubt that either one of us is going to convince the other. Either editors will reach a consensus about it, or it will go to some sort of dispute resolution. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

And I have not said it does, I have said that until deaths have actually occurred, no one has died, and thus the claim they might has no place in a BLP. This is now bordering on bludgeoning, and so I withdraw with a firm no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch, just a heads up that that estimate is not from the HIV Modelling Consortium. The tracker only says "The calculations on this website have been endorsed by several independent modellers working as part of the HIV Modelling Consortium (http://hivmodeling.org/) (Andrew Phillips, Rowan Martin-Hughes, Paul Revill, John Stover, Edinah Mudimu)." As best I can tell, the group that created the PEPFAR Impact Tracker doesn't itself have a name, but here are some people associated with it, though it's not clear to me whether all of those people are actively working on the tracker. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Susan, one other comment: whatever happens with the content on Trump's article, you can add this content to the PEPFAR section of the article on Executive Order 14169, as that's what led to these cuts. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, I can't imagine our need to know which persons in the consortium created the tracker. The estimate is from the tracker: compiled by the HIV Modelling Consortium. Correct? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no, not correct. I already quoted the relevant text from the Tracker itself. "Endorsed by" does not mean "created by" or "compiled by." I don't know where PrEPWatch got its information from, nor is it clear to me what they even mean by "compiled by." (One compiles data — and the Tracker notes that "Much of the underlying data to this model would not be possible without the UNAIDS compiled and produced data" — but one doesn't compile a projection, which involves more than data.) You might want to poke around the HIV Modelling Consortium's website to see what they do and don't do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest you amend your comment at WP:RSN? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I took your question to be about an "HIV Modeling Consortium tracker," as that's what you called it, also linking to the consortium's website, and saying "I believe the consortium are subject-matter experts." You linked to the tracker as well, but at the time, I took your word for it that the tracker came from the consortium, so I investigated the consortium. My mistake. I'll update what I wrote at the RSN, and I suggest that you amend your RSN post to make it clear that you're not asking about the HIV Modelling Consortium, and that it's not their tracker. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The HIV Modelling Consortium took credit for the tracker here. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, did you read the press release I gave you at 15:25? The National Department of Health in South Africa hasn't had a functioning cause of death process since 2014. Where are you planning to get your better numbers? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact that there only exists a worthless estimate doesn't imply we should include that estimate in the absence of something better. Riposte97 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment Once again, unnecessarily harsh ("extremely questionaly", "dodgy", and today "worthless"). -SusanLesch (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

SusanLesch What is the purpose of tone policing me? Are you worried that the fine people at the HIV Modelling Consortium are going to read this and have their feelings hurt? Or are you trying to antagonise me? Riposte97 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You gave us a drumbeat of debasing adjectives without justification. South Africa has more HIV infections than any other country. This group of scientists worked out an estimate of deaths from HIV while that country lacks usable cause of death statistics. They have earned respect, citations, and adoption by the World Health Organization. I'm not policing anyone, but I will challenge an unfair assessment. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why you characterize it as a "dodgy internet tracker, which is not an RS by any stretch" and as "worthless"? Because that's the question here: is it an RS for specific article text or not? As for "It also clearly identifies it as an advocacy group, so probably not NPOV either," NPOV is about the article as a whole and about how editors summarize sources, not about whether any one source is biased (see WP:ALLOWEDBIAS). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

How could we possibly conclude if it's reliable when we don't even know who is making the claim? I have a raft of issues with this (some of them epistemological) but that is a preliminary hurdle to inclusion that we cannot clear. Riposte97 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Why say that it's a "dodgy internet tracker, which is not an RS by any stretch" and "worthless," if you're not willing to explain why? "I don't know X" does not imply "it's worthless." And for the hurdle you assert that "we" cannot clear: we don't know all of the people involved in its creation and/or ongoing refinement, but as I pointed out above, we do know several who are associated with it. Brooke Nichols is involved in its creation / ongoing refinement, and she clearly has relevant expertise. You can also look at who chose to co-author the field notes with her (who are involved somehow, whether or not they were involved in the tracker's creation), as well as who has endorsed the tracker (some of whom are identified on the tracker's website). They also have relevant expertise. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

In order for something to be a reliable source, it must first be…a source. An unattributable piece of information cannot by definition be that. SL has helpfully solved that issue, so I will move on. What is the purpose of including this? It is, at best, highly speculative. To put it in a BLP, particularly in the terms that it was, is inappropriate. We can't say that Trump has caused those deaths. We might be able to say Trump's policies had the collateral consequence of cutting of PEPFAR funding for a couple of weeks, which an advocacy group estimates may end up causing 15-20k deaths over time, with certain assumptions built in. To try to pseudoquantify it at an exact number may be sufficient when estimating, say, a hurricane. It is wholly insufficient when deaths are implicitly laid at the door of an individual. Morally and legally, it is not good enough. Riposte97 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The easiest rephrase, if we can nail down who is actually making the estimate and assuming they are reliable, would be "Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID, resulting in 15,000 excess HIV-related deaths as of DATE according to YY estimates". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch, I don't know if you saw my updated RSN comment, but I noted another source that you may find helpful: https://www.unaids.org/en/topic/PEPFAR_impact - "If PEPFAR were permanently halted, UNAIDS estimates that there would be an estimated additional 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths, 3.4 million AIDS orphans, 350,000 new HIV infections among children and an additional 8.7 million adult new infections by 2029 – making ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 impossible." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Including that here would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Riposte97 (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If it is from RS, attributed, and labeled an estimate, it does not violate CRYSTAL. There will be additional deaths. This is just an estimate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

PEPFAR was only suspended for a week. The state department granted a waiver to permit it to continue operations. Therefore, this is an unwarranted counterfactual, notwithstanding it is verifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

At some point, we should probably include a list of all the actions that have been taken and then quickly reversed. Possibly in a separate article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

only suspended for a week. According to Médecins Sans Frontières, it was a limited waiver: "Despite a limited waiver covering some activities, what our teams are seeing in many of the countries where we work is that people have already lost access to lifesaving care and have no idea whether or when their treatment will continue." You can read up on the limited waiver here — a tad reminiscent of the guidelines on emergency abortions to save mothers' lives that leaves mothers bleeding out in hospital parking lots until they're close enough to dying before hospital staff dare to act. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

only suspended for a week. The Center for Global Development said that Secretary Rubio's waivers were not in effect: Reports on the ground suggest stop-work orders are still in place, clinics are shuttered, and assistance is still paused. We've known this for weeks. By the time a judge reversed the funding freeze, clinics had closed and the 15,000 employees who implement PEPFAR were gone. This addition has more support than objections but I will hold off for a day. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I see 9 commentors, I am unsure if there is more than 4 clear yes opinions expressed, so maybe we need an RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree we need an RfC to progress this. Riposte97 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

However, let's see what the consensus is.

Should we add this

Please just say

Yes or No

Keep any discussion above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Closing. Slatersteven. Sorry, I just suggested an editor from WP:RSN in the interest of neutrality to not participate here. A vote now will not be accurate. Would you like to start the RfC or may I? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You should as you need to say what you want us to add, I can't guess that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, hoping you and Mandruss think this is correct. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on deaths following USAID funding freeze

Should HIV-related deaths be added to §Mass terminations of federal employees? I.e.:

"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID, resulting in more than 15,000 excess HIV-related deaths through February according to HIV Modeling Consortium estimates."
Yes or No. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

• No. I have significant BLP concerns with this. The number is of extremely limited utility as it is based on certain premises which are of questionable verifiability. The proposed wording also does not mention that the funding freeze was reversed, and that a far more nuanced approach has been taken to the program to which the number refers. Riposte97 (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Wording changes are welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, this sourcing seems sufficient to include this claim. I'd have WP:DUE concerns if it wasn't part of one of the most covered stories around lately. Loki (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. Per Ripost, also I would add this page is not about Musky, and any actions by his presidency should go there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes to the first half. Adjust Replace the second half with text that will have to be discussed. I believe that the first half of the sentence should be added, and that some of the significant global effects of this dismantling effort should be identified, but I don't support the proposed second half of the sentence, in part because I have concerns about the counter's accuracy (I gave some details elsewhere), and in part because I'd prefer that it address a wider variety of effects, not just sub-Saharan HIV-related deaths. (There will be deaths from other causes, HIV-related deaths elsewhere, there are significant non-mortality effects.) The specifics of which significant effects to include might need to be determined through further discussion. Here are a couple of sources that would support text about some of the diverse significant impacts: [4], [5] (be sure to read the memo that the NYT article links to: [6]). Here's a source noting the thousands of contracts cancelled / $billions of aid frozen. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. I would change "through February" to "in the administration's first months". Remove the tracker; The Independent is sufficient. This is a biography and not a catalogue of the effects of the subject's policies. I support Simonm223's version below. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Spin off Analysis of the effects of the USAID dismantling better belong in a dedicated article _pbp 14:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• No - Not with this sourcing. Excess deaths should be reported, but only when WP:BESTSOURCES have studied and reported on the matter. The PEPFAR page is not independent, very clearly. It is a primary source and has no methodology. Newspaper reporting of their number is primary, lacks independent analysis and adds no reliability. It is quite wrong to use such sourcing for such a claim. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence here I do concur that the sources, such as they exist, are a bit of a stretch for BLP if used to support the statement as written. However, if it were broken into two sentences with the attribution at the front of the second sentence, rather than the end, I think it would make the attribution of opinion to PEPFAR clearer which would, IMO, resolve the BLP problem of saying too close to wiki voice that these surplus deaths have occurred. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Basically what I am proposing is that it should look like this: Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID. The HIV Modeling Consortium estimates that disruption of USAID has resulted in more than 15,000 excess HIV-related deaths since the start of the presidential term. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Support breaking the sentence and citing the top-line cause of death. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Support breaking the sentence and citing the top line cause of death. -Abolishedtemple (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. USAID doesn't just fund HIV projects, and unless we discussed the impact of every project they work on alongside their budgets I don't think it could be added without violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. satkara❈talk 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• No Setting aside the issues with WP:NOTTHENEWS and WP:RECENT is this really important enough to justify inclusion in a large biography a about a celebrity turned politician? It seems preposterous that this trivial piece of news would belong in this article. I'm not even sure it's a big enough story to justify inclusion in a standalone article about the presidency. Nemov (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - This is not "trivial". This is a lot of dead people. We have articles on an action resulting in ten dead people. Surely 1,000 times as many deaths, and vastly more to come, is DUE. Indeed, for a standalone article when the full impact of the death of USAID is apparent. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. There are considerable issues with the sourcing that fails to meet the high burden of inclusion of such heavily contentious and charged material in this BLP. Leaving aside the problems of whether or not such a particular granular issue is due, this is sourced to an advocacy organization and the "tracker" is literally just an incrementing count that goes up every 3.3 minutes. N=N+1 is not remotely a strong enough source for inclusion of a claim of thousands of deaths caused. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• No This is UNDUE for a biography of Trump. It should not be included here until it is focused on by a larger number of high-quality secondary sources, not a single advocacy organization whose death tracker's reliability has been questioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. Undue for this biography even if completely true, which is in question with the speculative nature of this claim. — Goszei (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• No to the deaths count, neutral on USAID actions. I don't particularly mind a statement such as "Trump and Musk have worked to dismantle USAID" or similar. But the "death count" is not really something to include. It is emotional editorializing to pull at the heartstrings, so to speak. News organizations that are reporting it are doing so because it's clickbait - it makes people want to read about the (number) of people who died. But then they click in and find out that the number is just an estimate of potential excess deaths - not taking into account other factors, just excess deaths. And regardless, to claim that Trump is solely responsible for those deaths does not even begin to address that the deaths are not US subjects. Would it be nice if everyone in the world had access to the same healthcare, food, shelter, and other circumstances as everyone else? Sure. But that does not mean the US had any obligation to these people to begin with - and while it's sad that they may suffer harm because Trump decided to stop bankrolling their country, it is a blatant NPOV violation to make this so important as to be covered in his main biographical article. No comment/opinion on subarticles - but we don't have to copy everything in subarticles here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• No to death count, neutral on USAID: Undue and unnecessary. I did a quick search, and the cited piece from Independent (Googled: "HIV Modeling Consortium" 15,000) is the only piece reporting on this. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Question Mandruss, is changing this allowed mid-RfC? While this death toll is horrendous and WP:DUE I think we can accommodate FactOrOpinion, depending on what number of deaths in what time frame he considers accurate. In Nikkimaria's pseudocode with variables in CAPS (WORLDWIDE could say TO AMERICANS):

"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID, resulting in TENS OF THOUSANDS of excess HIV-related deaths as of DATE according to HIV Modeling Consortium estimates, and increasing the risk WORLDWIDE of exposure to INFECTIOUS VIRUSES AND BACTERIA."

Sources

-SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Susan, re: deaths, the sole focus of that tracker is HIV-related deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. The USAID funding freeze and mass layoffs will increase global deaths from diverse causes (drug-resistant TB, diarrheal dehydration from lack of clean drinking water, malaria, extended severe malnutrition, lack of vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases, increased maternal and neonatal mortality, ...), and there will also be HIV-related deaths outside of sub-Saharan Africa. I care about all of these deaths. I bet you do too. I'd rather not hide them through omission. I don't favor referencing the tracker at all; as I said at the RSN, I don't think their numbers reflect what these researchers said in their JAIS field note, and their model has already varied dramatically in its estimates (according to the Daily Maverick (South Africa) article I linked to, on Feb. 5, their estimate was apparently over 35K, which means it has dropped by more than half as they've revised their model). And of course there can be severe health effects other than death, such as permanent disability from polio. The memo I linked to above also notes non-health effects: economic impacts (including in the US, as farmers lose USAID as a key buyer), global supply chain impacts related to worker ill-health, security threats. I recognize that one sentence can't illustrate the full range of awful effects and the short-sightedness of it all, but I think it would be better if the second half of the sentence were workshopped further.

@Riposte97, @Slatersteven, you're two of the people with objections. What sentence would you propose? (And if your answer is to say nothing about it, why?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure the impacts of a partial freeze in some USAID programs can be encapsulated in a sentence. Perhaps the best we can do is to say 'programs which addressed x, y and z were disrupted'. I’m sure better data will be available I’m time. At the moment, we don't know if the resumption of funding will alleviate issues, whether other organisations will step up, or whether these programs were all that efficacious in the first place. I believe I cited WP:CRYSTAL somewhere above. That is why. Riposte97 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you seriously misunderstand WP:CRYSTAL. As I pointed out above, WP regularly includes information about diverse projections: population growth, GDP, climate change, etc., sourced to RSs. CRYSTAL is about not including unverifiable info (per WP's definition WP:V) and rumors from people who don't know what they're talking about; it explicitly states that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." Nicholas Enrich, who wrote the memo I noted earlier, was acting assistant administrator for global health at USAID (subsequenty put on administrative leave because they didn't like the forthrightness of his statements about the projected impacts).

What you refer to as “a partial freeze in some USAID programs” is a total freeze of the majority of programs, involving thousands of contracts, tens of billions of dollars of support, and the recall of tens of thousands of USAID workers. Even if the contracts and funding were resumed in 3 months (we already know that most of the workers won’t be retained due to the RIF order, which is not temporary), 3 months without functional programs already causes significant harm (e.g., it doesn’t actually take very long for children under 5 to die from something like diarrheal dehydration caused by lack of clean drinking water). There are also RS reports that the funds that were supposed to have resumed under the limited waiver weren't actually resumed. Re: “we don't know if the resumption of funding will alleviate issues,” we don’t know whether they'll be resumed, period. As for “we don't know … whether these programs were all that efficacious in the first place,” you once again seem to treat your personal lack of knowledge as if it’s what “we” don’t know. Name a USAID program where you believe the efficacy is unknown, and let’s test your claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And so we return to the verifiability of this 'tracker'. We are arguing in circles. It is not for us to speculate about what might happen, which is what the majority of the second paragraph of your comment seems to do. My comment on efficaciousness might have been imprecise - all I meant was that in many of the regions in which USAID operates, it is not the only actor, and so attribution is difficult.
In any event, this RfC seems unlikely to yield the result you are angling for. I would recommend creating a new discussion to hash out new ground if you want to substantially deviate from it. Riposte97 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course the tracker is verifiable, but I don't know why you (not "we") are returning to it, since (a) I already said that I don't think it should be used due to reliability issues, and (b) in asking you what sentence you would propose, there was no expectation at all that you would propose something referencing the tracker. The goal is to improve the article, and when text is contested, we do that by working together on it. To be clear: if RSs project diverse effects (and many of them have, and some of the sources have tremendous expertise), there is nothing wrong with referring to their projections. But I accept that you prefer to not to address it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Exaclty what I said in all the conversations above. I have nothing more to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn't address this at all in your comments above. Your comments above were about deaths from the PEPFAR funding freeze and that tracker, which is very explicitly not what I'm asking about, as I don't think that the tracker #s are reliable, and I don't think that it makes any sense to focus only on sub-Saharan HIV-related deaths. I'll repeat my actual question, just in case you're willing to reconsider, spelling it out further so that it's clearer to you that it's not about PEPFAR: What sentence would you propose for the effects of laying off tens of thousands of USAID employees, ending thousands of foreign aid contracts and freezing tens of billions in funding? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, this article is not about MUsk, so mentioning his actions has no place, These figures cannot be (and will not be) final so we should wait until we have an analysis post-event (we can wait, in fact, it will have to be updated anyway). Ther is also the fact this tells us really nothing about Trump the man, as such it would be better in an article about his presidency, not him. We are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You're focusing on what you don't want instead of thinking about whether there's a sentence — re: the huge global humanitarian effects of Trump's choices in several of his EOs — that would improve the article. Your sentence doesn't have to name Musk at all, nor any specific numbers. The article has large sections devoted to Trump's presidencies, and unless you're arguing that those sections "tell[] us really nothing about Trump the man, as such ... would be better in an article about his presidency, not him", then that's not an argument against including a single sentence about this. No one is suggesting that the article be a newspaper, so that's a straw man. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I was asked why, I said, I do not see this as adding anything, I have said why and do not intend to bludgeon the process. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Removal of 7 sources

Greetiongs! @Mb2437, please don't remove content sourced to 7 sources [7], thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Per the edit summary, we should be focusing on actions over commentary. Forcing opinions on the reader is not remotely neutrally toned. His actions should be clearly underlined, with the viewpoint left to the reader. It's blatant persuasive writing; it being sourced by a few outlets does not justify sacrificing neutrality here. If there is a side he is choosing, his actions will clearly underline that. MB2437 16:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

we should be focusing on actions over commentary
No. What we should be focusing on is governed by WP:RS - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

All majority and significant minority views makes this a considerably less simple case. There is no due weight applied in just listing sources that opined x. Such issues are completely avoided by giving an unbiased, encyclopaedic account of events which happened, and will hold historical significance. Again, it's persuasive writing. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy nor opinions. If he takes Russia's side—as he did in the Zelenskyy meeting—then that should be abundantly clear to the reader from what he has and hasn't done. It is a much more complex case than x or y, especially when he's spent this whole weekend threatening Russia.[8][9][10] MB2437 16:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No, content represented by the majority of sources is not "advocacy" or "opinions". You also have added unsourced content [11] and removed sourced content [12], which may led to other editors perceive your edits as not adhering to Wikipedia rules. No, he wasn't "spending whole weekend threatening Russia". Those objections are weak and are not based on Wikipedia rules, and the deletion of sourced content is against them. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It is advocacy if it comes in lieu of due weight and a neutral tone. That content is not unsourced whatsoever, the title of the very first source even discusses ending the war. It is crucial context that has gone unmentioned elsewhere in the article. "Other editors" are free to chip in here, nobody besides you has levied such accusations; I have adhered to WP:BRD and just listed several Wikipedia rules that underline my edits. I could go much deeper into the importance of maintaining neutrality. With the brevity of this article, it does not need to cover every source on every opinion; such content would perhaps be more appropriate at foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration, or maybe even a split to Donald Trump's attempts to end the Russo-Ukrainian war. WP:BLPs must strictly adhere to NPOV. Please keep this civil. MB2437 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with ManyAreasExpert, we document what RS say. We do not just list events and let the reader decide what they mean. That would be like providing data in a medical article without the conclusion that reliable sources draw from the data and letting the reader come to some medical conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Logical fallacies aside, listing events free of initial opinion is a backbone of neutral writing. He has now been described as changing his tone by several RS:[13][14][15] It would be undue to state one and not the other... Again, this kind of commentary does not belong in a BLP. MB2437 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

And all three of those sources indicated Trump quickly switched back to blaming Ukraine, his long time position. Nothing unusual about such behavior (good people on both sides -- no I didn't mean that, Did I say Zelenski was a dictator? I can't believe I said that.) On your link to RECENTISM, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and one which would be violated by this entire subject if it is were PAG. As for your impolite "logical fallacies" comment, I'll let that slide. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I would keep at as it was originally. Rather than having to go into detailed explanations of the timeline of Trump's comments, we should say that he was "described as taking Russia's side" and then berated Zelensky. The details are on the sub-article about the peace talks. BootsED (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine for now, until academic assessments are available. Is it time to return the content back? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really count if all 7 are the NYT, it only counts as one source for the purpose of due weight. Also, we need to be neutral here and focus on the facts unless the opinion is important enough to be its own major fact about the subject. This is not a sufficiently important opinion to be due for inclusion here, although it could potentially merit inclusion in a subarticle. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

we need to be neutral here
That means the article needs to mention the issue: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. WP:NPOV

and focus on the facts
Not a policy-based argument

unless the opinion is important enough to be its own major fact about the subject. This is not a sufficiently important opinion to be due for inclusion here, although it could potentially merit inclusion in a subarticle.
If we are in disagreement, we should refer to sources. An assessment reported by BBC, Times, NBC and others is important enough. A Plan for Peace Through Strength in Ukraine: Europe Must Step Up, but America Still Has a Role to Play in Ending the War Since he took office, the details of his administration’s plans have started to be filled in, and they seem to involve simply forcing Ukraine to accept Russia’s demands: ceded territory, military weakness, a change of government, and reorientation back to the east. It is hard to know just how far the administration’s pro-Moscow tilt will go, both because of the confusion surrounding what appears to be an epochal shift in U.S. foreign policy as well as the inconsistency of the Trump administration’s communications. But in recent weeks, enough has changed to make clear that previous American promises of support, to Ukraine and others, can no longer be fully trusted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

NPOV is about presenting facts neutrally, not advancing the bias of sources: fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. MB2437 23:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's do that then. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump berating Zelensky at televised Oval Office meeting

My edit:

On February 28, he and Vice President Vance berated Zelenskyy during a televised meeting at the White House, marking the first time in U.S. history that a president verbally attacked a visiting head of state on camera, and threatened to withdraw support for Ukraine altogether.

reverted here and here partially trimmed herecorrection Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC) by Mb2437 to read

He hosted talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy later that month, culiminating in a highly contentious meeting where he verbally berated him.

There's a first time for everything, including the U.S. president yelling at a visiting head of state and throwing him out of the Oval Office in a televised official visit, but it's overdetail for this WP article? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the double rv, that was a result of the edit conflict! Introducing it with he hosted talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy later that month, after introducing his talks with Russia, is crucial to the chronology; it previously read as though he only hosted peace negotiations with Russia, when he hosted Zelenskyy for several days in the following week. I see it as trivia, but it isn't a major issue if widely discussed. MB2437 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying my above comment — you reverted my edit, then removed marking the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president verbally attacked a visiting head of state on camera in such a manner from the original text. What is the source for hosted Zelenskyy for several days in the following week? AFAIK, after a stopover in Ireland on Feb. 27, Zelensky arrived in the U.S., met Trump on Feb. 28, flew to London on March 1 for talks with British and E.U. representatives on March 2, and then returned to Ukraine. There's nothing wrong with the chronology of this text: After making concessions to Putin, he began talks with Russia to end the Russo-Ukrainian war without Ukrainian representatives on February 18. On February 28, he and Vice President Vance berated Zelenskyy during a televised meeting at the White House, marking the first time in U.S. history that a president verbally attacked a visiting head of state on camera, and threatened to withdraw support for Ukraine altogether. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "opened dialogue" would be more appropriate, given they agreed to a major minerals deal the day before. It's not like there was nothing in between his talks with Russia and his berating of Zelenskyy. MB2437 20:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I quickly checked 2 sources supplied and I can't find that "he hosted talks with Zelensky" there. Please advice. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump didn't host in-person talks with Zelensky for several days. Zelensky came to the White House, was kicked out, and then hasn't come back since. He has since withdrawn support, so this one sentence should be updated to

"He was described as taking Russia's side in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. On February 28, he and Vice President Vance berated Zelenskyy during a televised meeting at the White House, marking the first time in U.S. history that a president verbally attacked a visiting head of state on camera. A few days later, he cut off military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine.

BootsED (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I just removed unsourced content, others may add / return the content supported by sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This Zelenskyy story has moved considerable past the discussion above... Zelenskyy has retracted his White House statement, European members of NATO are considering supporting him anyway but still have not given him money to compensate for Trump's halt to Ukraine aid, Ukraine is re-offering minerals deal to US, meeting between them presently being scheduled for Saudi Arabia [16], etc... All of these items are on RS with a simple Google search. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should add timestamps to each of your claims, which may have been valid at some point, but are most likely not anymore. Unfortunaltely most of them do not have the gravitas/relevance the staged play in oval office had. Alexpl (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All of these items are on RS with a simple Google search — right now all we have is your unverified word for it. The one source you cite is a vague piece about "look[ing] to be thawing" and "constructive noises" about "planning discussions" with the idea to "get down the framework for a peace agreement" - in other words, the usual concepts of a plan. If you have RS to support your opinions, please cite them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of this material as I have presented it above is already fully sourced on many of the sibling pages on Wikipedia covering this news story. I can copy-paste them here, though anyone else can do this as well (its mostly on the article for Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related peace article linked there). The question is how much of it will be retained by editors on this page after the reliable sources are added. This news story is nearly a week old now and may deserve more than one short sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It was unique - and Mr. Trumps personal attacks against Zelensky continue, like today, with the international press still pointing to the incident in the oval office.[17] It has to be mentioned. Alexpl (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

For some later context, Ukrainian and American delegations met today (Mar. 11) in Saudi Arabia and then issued a joint statement that appears to restore relations to where they were before the Oval Office meeting:

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/spilna-zayava-za-pidsumkami-zustrichi-delegacij-ukrayini-ta-96553

There's one new point: Ukraine says they will agree to a 30-day ceasefire if Russia will do the same.

In the meantime, a couple dozen Ukrainian civilians were killed in Russian attacks, and Russia was able to retake some Russian territory that Ukraine had held near Kursk. All of that happened while the U.S. paused sharing intelligence with Ukraine. And various Russian officials and state media talking heads said that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were giving them everything they wanted.

Just yesterday one of Donald Trump's key advisors, Elon Musk, said that U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (Democrat of Arizona) is a "traitor" because Kelly visited Ukraine over the weekend and voiced support for Ukraine's struggle to defend itself against Russia's ongoing invasion.

Good luck squeezing all that down into one sentence, though. NME Frigate (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This news story has moved well past much of this discussion as in The New York Times current headline (3-11-25): "Ukraine Supports 30-Day Cease-Fire as U.S. Says It Will Resume Military Aid". This was followed in the article by the statement that: "The deal announced on Tuesday delivered new momentum to efforts to halt the fighting, with the ball for any truce now in Russia’s court, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio." The insults exchanged in the White House a week ago appear to be old news at this juncture. See this article: [18]. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Rubio's statement is really not meaningful. What would you expect him to say? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I still think that the historical perspective (the first time in U.S. history that a president verbally attacked a visiting head of state on camera) is what makes this meeting notable. Everything else is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't do play-by-play on ongoing events. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

FTR, you removed half, I removed the rest. My bad, my talk page awareness was not up to par. Still, it's a situation of "omit pending consensus to include". I'm not entirely convinced that the "historical perspective" is needed in this particular article, but at least we should omit the photo and include its caption, or something similar, in the prose. And we certainly don't need the precise date here.

In February 2025, Trump and Vice President Vance met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, in the Oval Office. The meeting, which was televised live, was highly contentious as Trump and Vance berated Zelenskyy. It marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president openly verbally attacked a visiting head of state.

Otherwise, count me neutral at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural point. This edit was restored by two editors, Boots and myself, and should be restored to the article while discussion on Talk page is taking place, since only one editor is trying to remove it. Space4T can make his best case to have it deleted, rather than forcing two editors to restore an edit to which they both agreed to keep in the article. The edit on Zelenskyy is useful to the Trump biography and should be restored to the article until Space4T wins support for his desire to delete it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. What you're asserting is called de facto consensus. Per long-standing practice established years ago by an admin who is no longer with us, new content does not achieve de facto consensus until it has been in the article unchanged for 4–6 weeks. So what we have is disputed new content that requires talk page consensus to include. It matters not that it's disputed by only one editor; in fact that's almost always the case (it only takes one editor to challenge by reversion). It's regrettable that BRD was not more strictly followed in this case, as that only confuses things as we see here.

If you're claiming talk page consensus for the content, why is this discussion still open? As I've indicated, I'm neutral on whether to include anything, but I'm far from neutral on what should be included if anything. I fairly strongly oppose what was in the article as of yesterday. So that makes two.

should be restored to the article while discussion on Talk page is taking place -- Another long-standing practice: We never (or should never) leave content in the article while discussion is taking place. Readers should never see disputed content before there's a consensus to include it, other than those who see it between the add (B) and the challenge (R), which is unavoidable. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Still on the procedural point. Since the page is being treated effectively as a 1RR page, then it does make sense to see a difference between when one editor on his own wants to make a revert of another editor editing on his own; that's different than when one editor wishes to revert against 2-3 editors who appear to be maintaing an edit which appears to have useful RS to support it. Space4T can use the talk page to try to establish support for deletion, though he should establish some support for doing it. The edit by Boots has reliable sources to support it. Its also not clear if you are opposed to the Boots version of the edit or to the Space4t Version of the edit. It seems to make little sense to remove the Zelenskyy material as a full blank-out of the Zelenskyy event when there have now been three international peace conferences about it in March 2025 and dozens of RS available. Still, you wish to blank-out the Zelenskyy event as if it did not exist. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the page is being treated effectively as a 1RR page -- I don't believe that's true. 1RR would mean I'm limited to one revert in any 24-hour period. Clearly, that's not the case or I and others have earned long wikiprison terms.

I'm unable to discern how much of the rest of your comment relies on that apparently incorrect understanding. I'm not sure I could even if I were sober. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the part about the purpose of the meeting (the part Space4T removed today):

The historical first is the only thing that justifies inclusion. Otherwise, it would be a NOTNEWS situation. Per summary style, this article should not be what Space4T has called "play-by-play on ongoing events". If there are any readers who come to this article for amateur crowdsourced current-news summaries about Donald Trump, they'll just have to be weaned and informed that there are other articles providing that level of detail.

This reasoning is not mandated by policy, nor is it forbidden by policy to my knowledge. Policy should get off the fence on this, but for now it's a matter of editor opinion. Unless I have a terrible perception problem, it's a widely accepted viewpoint at this article. And we all need to be on the same page about this, for reasons that should be obvious.

Assuming you accept the preceding (I recommend that), we need say only enough to describe the historical first; the additional context is an unwarranted use of space and an unhelpful distraction for readers, essentially noise. For this purpose, it matters not whether the discussion was about the Russo-Ukrainian War, the price of almonds, or the reproductive habits of Malagasy lemurs; the historical first would exist regardless. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning in my first paragraph above would make a fine consensus item. That would finally get us all on the same page, whether or not all of us want to be on it. Instead of reverting per NOTNEWS, which lacks consensus, we would revert per consensus [x]. Any cases in the gray area, such as this one, could come to this page for a consensus to override consensus [x]. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

But wait. Consensus [x] already exists. It's called current consensus item 37. Done. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure this a "historical first" or that "verbally attacked" should be used, that is a bit much and not really supported by RS. The fact it was televised and real time and that something like this "hasn't be seen before" might be significant but not seeing it for a bio. Maybe rewrite and include in a sub article. --Malerooster (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Three weeks later, was that just "Friday at the Trump White House" or a notable/historical first ..., including the U.S. president yelling at a visiting head of state and throwing him out of the Oval Office in a televised official visit (last 10 minutes of the C-SPAN video)? Also worth watching: at 17:00 Trump calls on Marjorie Taylor Green's boyfriend for a (prearranged?) question about Trump's legacy as a peacemaker. The Associated Press called it "Trump’s Oval Office thrashing of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy" and said it "was the most heated public exchange of words between world leaders in the Oval Office in memory". The New York Times wrote that Trump and Vance "berated" Zelensky and

[i]n a fiery public confrontation unlike any seen between an American president and foreign leader in modern times, ... castigated Mr. Zelensky for not being grateful enough for U.S. support in Ukraine’s war with Russia, and sought to strong-arm him into making a peace deal on whatever terms the Americans dictated.
With his voice raised and temper flaring, Mr. Trump threatened to abandon Ukraine altogether if Mr. Zelensky did not go along. After journalists left the Oval Office, Mr. Trump canceled the rest of the visit, including a planned joint news conference and signing ceremony for a deal on rare minerals, and U.S. officials told the Ukrainians to leave.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that item #37 applies. Most of the editors participating on this talk page use MOS and the Wikipedia Policies to guide their edits: It's not clear what you mean by stating that an old administrator once commented on a Talk page about policy. What is the policy name or the MOS paragraph to be read here. Also, your definition of 1RR is different than Wikipedia policy which states: "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to pages (excepting Talk pages) or editors." Which policy are you referring to for your old administrator as well? A complete blank-out of the Zelenskyy event still seems inappropriate for the Trump page: as if Gaza is important enough to include here on the Trump page, but Ukraine and Zelenskyy must be blanked-out. It seems inconsistent. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

an old administrator: it was 2018, this article was under 1RR restriction, and I violated it because I didn't understand longstanding content and bold editing. This is the discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This article isn't under 1RR restriction now (it's the normal 3RR) but the contentious topics procedure applies (see banner, above). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Gaza. If you mean the sentence that Trump and his incoming administration helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas alongside the Biden administration, enacted a day prior to his inauguration, I opposed adding it. What do we do now that Netanyahu has unilaterally broken it with Trump's backing? I updated the section; if it's challenged, that will be a new discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the policy name or the MOS paragraph to be read here. Seems to me we're mixing (maybe confusing) issues here. First, not all widely accepted principles are codified in policy. Some of them are codified in essays, and those essays wield significant weight in discussions, albeit less weight than policies. Some widely accepted principles aren't codified anywhere, and exist only in the minds of experienced editors and scattered, long-archived discussions ("case law"). I don't know that I could put my finger on a policy/guideline about de facto consensus, but it's certainly a widely accepted principle (as clearly evidenced in the fact that NeilN, a highly experienced and respected admin, endorsed it and none has disagreed). The problem has been that there has never been a widely accepted (at community level) time period required for content to acquire de facto consensus status. That's unfortunate, but NeilN suggested 4–6 weeks and that's what we've used whenever the issue came up. So it's widely accepted at this article pending a local consensus to change it. Maybe we would benefit from an explicit local consensus for 4–6 weeks, but I guess the issue hasn't come up frequently enough to warrant one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A complete blank-out of the Zelenskyy event still seems inappropriate for the Trump page: Fine. That's a legitimate content argument. You still need consensus to include anything, as well as exactly what to include. That's the purpose of this discussion, and no such consensus exists at this time. It is not a process argument. argument. Process is content-independent and content-blind.

I'll switch from neutral to supporting my bluelighted proposal above, if that helps. If you and one or two others can join me, and there is little support for any alternative specific proposal, I'd call it a consensus (and others could challenge that if they think it's worth arguing the process point and prolonging this discussion even more). Unless you feel strongly about including the part about the purpose of the meeting, I don't see why my proposal wouldn't satisfy you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Edited after reply per WP:REDACT. 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

My thought is that I'm likely to support your Zelenskyy material, though the only bluelighted proposal appearing on my screen appears to be from Space4T; did I miss the alternative you wanted me to read? Otherwise, I could probably try to support your suggestion about including Zelenskyy-Trump in revised wording if I'm reading it as you intended (if you mean "In February 2025..."). ErnestKrause (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

(if you mean "In February 2025...") Yep. It's bluelighted, and it's a proposal. Hence a bluelighted proposal. smh. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, Mb2437, BootsED, Alexpl, NME Frigate, Objective3000, and Malerooster: Can you support inclusion of the following content (copied from above) in Foreign policy, 2025–present? Photo of the meeting to be omitted (any photo would exceed the height of the paragraph on many displays including mine). Please, if that helps. ;) No need to reply if you neither support nor oppose.

In February 2025, Trump and Vice President Vance met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, in the Oval Office. The meeting, which was televised live, was highly contentious as Trump and Vance berated Zelenskyy. It marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president openly verbally attacked a visiting head of state.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It omits the fact that the visiting head of state had been the victim of an invasion of his country with mass destruction and death and that he did not realize this was a reality TV show trap. But, I would still accept it at this point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It deliberately omits a lot of context, providing only enough to convey the historical first, which is the only reason for including anything at all. But, I will accept your acceptance. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And I understand and accept that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, for now. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The citation does not support this material. The author says "never before has a US president verbally attacked..." Not sure about using wikivoice for this type of historical fact? Also, I would go with "berated" which seems to be used most often or something other than "verbally attacked". What language do the RSs use most often? --Malerooster (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The above proposal already uses "berated" once, and I'm avoiding unnatural and awkward repetition; that would be poor writing. Merriam-Webster berate: "to scold or condemn vehemently and at length". I don't think that's significantly different from "verbally attacked". I don't know that more RS uses "verbally attacked" than anything else—I suspect not—but there are a number of highest-quality sources that do. From the sources I have looked at, I'd venture a guess that "verbally attacked" has a plurality if not a majority; RS over all says the same thing about twenty different ways. Regardless, I call it a permissible paraphrase.

If the distinction is important to you, I invite you to do the legwork instead of putting that on others who are just trying to get this to a consensus so we can move on. To answer your own question, you will have to conduct a comprehensive survey of all reliable sources.

As always, perfect is the enemy of good. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

+1 Alexpl (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Four days ago, I pinged seven involved users. Four have responded; the other three have edited after the ping, suggesting that they neither support nor oppose.

Including ErnestKrause and me, we now have five supporting the above-bluelighted proposal, one opposing. After 18 days and 3,899 words, this is far more support than any alternative. I'm asserting consensus subject to a process challenge. I'll update the article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Zelenskyy meeting post-consensus content discussion

After this meeting getting more and more mentions, I think it has enough notability to be mentioned. How Trump blew up the world order - and left Europe scrabbling In early March, three days after Volodymyr Zelensky's disastrous meeting with Trump and Vance in the White House, a Kremlin spokesman declared "the fragmentation of the West has begun". What also should be reported however is the context and consequences. Not just the "berated" designation, but the underlying foreign politics processes behind it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Which makes it 5–2 Support. Still asserting consensus subject to a process challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, looks like you added my "vote" for those opposing, while I am not.

Anyway, it would be beneficial to integrate more content and context from the abovementioned BBC article, including Trump politics weakening NATO and conforming with Russia goals in EU, and - the meeting playing to Peskov saying about West fragmenting [19] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Which makes it 5–1 or 5–2 Support. :-) Still asserting consensus subject to a process challenge. Anyway, you're outside the scope of this discussion, which is not about "anything related to Foreign policy, 2025–present". Just follow BRD, please: Do BOLD edits and see if they're accepted—as you have already started to do. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The citation still doesn't support this "material". If you want to use language like "in US history" you should have rock solid RSs....MAYBE something like "ever seen in modern times" ect. Not sure how to do that blue box thingy. --Malerooster (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

All in all, the 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy meeting is a notable episode in Trump's second term, and we have an entire article devoted to it. It needs to be included. It's one of the important events of his second term. —Alalch E. 14:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be included. And it is included, per consensus—as conveyed above. No need to support things that have already passed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I take it that you're not feeling very incremental. —Alalch E. 14:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm feeling a lot of things, but incremental isn't one of them. You're missing an essential point: The consensus was to limit the Zelenskyy content to the minimum required to convey the historical first. So how do you expand it without violating the consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A minute ago, further down I left a comment on the firsts. I am critical of the "first time" media shtick. —Alalch E. 14:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The citation still doesn't support this "material". Then JUSTFIXIT. I'm certain there is a citation that does. That's no reason to revert a consensus-based inclusion.

Not sure how to do that blue box thingy. Tech tip: When you want to know how something is done, look at the wikitext that did it. You don't appear to be using Visual Editor, so that should not be difficult to do. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

User Alalch saved the baby. --Malerooster (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss, I used the blue box to make a suggestion that was slightly different from the original but you deleted it. I am ok with Alalch's change. --Malerooster (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

My post festum thoughts: The "first time" shtick is not super encyclopedic. First time and what about it ... first time and so what? Etc. What's the inherent noteworthiness of any given first time as such? The immediate reaction of allies is much more noteworthy. —Alalch E. 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Looky here. This discussion was open for 18 days and you had nothing to say until, at long last, we reached a consensus for inclusion. Now, suddenly, we have to back up and resume content discussion because you disagree with the consensus? Not in my book. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it. You own this article. You really need to stop running things here and backslapping and echo chambering. Maybe take a few weeks off? --Malerooster (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Declined. Got a problem with my behavior at this article? ANI is thataway and AE thataway. I don't own this article, but I know process vio when I see it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In February 2025, Trump and Vice President Vance met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, in the Oval Office. The meeting, which was televised live, was highly contentious as Trump and Vance berated Zelenskyy, in what media outlets described as an unprecedented public confrontation between an American president and a foreign official in the Oval Office.

Need a source? I got you, above. Also, this: meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ended with an unprecedented clash in the Oval Office Friday afternoon. The explosive public confrontation was unlike any in recent memory.. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Good, fine, no "first time". Thanks. But what I added in Special:Diff/1282610241, namely Nearly all U.S. allies, along with other global figures, swiftly voiced their support for Zelenskyy following the confrontation is the actually important part that causes this content to merit inclusion. —Alalch E. 14:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t object, but am logging off now. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that either. Thank you Alalch. --Malerooster (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm weary of trying to defend process regarding this particular issue. Wouldn't want to give the impression that I think I own this article! We have now turned back the clock to 8 March, and I'm out. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - the reason I didn't take the regular process was that the proposed content had verifiability issues (in the last sentence, as brought up above) that I feel are a priority to fix. I searched for sources to back it up, and those I found I provided above. Hence, I changed the last sentence to match the sources found. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Unite the Right Comments

Should the sentence on the Unite the Right rally include more context?
Current wording: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.
Proposed wording: Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally, Trump condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides." On another occasion, he said that there were "very fine people on both sides," though said in the same statement that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." His comments were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. Riposte97 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding the web-archived source for the current wording for people without a WaPo subscription. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - the current wording is missing essential context and may be misleading.

Riposte97 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I see no reason to change. The current wording fits well and is free of weasel wording. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Proposed version is better, the "implying a moral equivalence" has been repudiated by fact checkers and needs additional context to avoid spreading disinformation in an unchallenged manner. Plenty of fact-checking RS have affirmed that Trump did not push a moral equivalence between white supremacists and counter-protestors, as he explicitly stated he was not talking about them, but rather what he perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be more mundane right wing protestors. Leaving out context like this is an obvious failure of NPOV.

Ex: Snopes: No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People',

Washington Post Fact Checker: While he condemned right-wing hate groups — “those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans” — he appeared to believe there were peaceful protesters there as well.

Associated Press Fact Check: Trump did use those words to describe attendees of the deadly rally, which was planned by white nationalists. But as Trump supporters have pointed out, he also said that day that he wasn’t talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists in attendance. KiharaNoukan (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Snopes and AP yet, but your WaPo quote is taken waaay out of context (for people without a WaPo subscription, see above link). This is the full text:

Quote

This is where Trump got into trouble. While he condemned right-wing hate groups — “those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans” — he appeared to believe there were peaceful protesters there as well. “You had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally,” Trump said on Aug. 15, several days after the rally. “But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.” He added: “There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones.” But there were only neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the Friday night rally. Virtually anyone watching cable news coverage or looking at the pictures of the event would know that. It’s possible Trump became confused and was really referring to the Saturday rallies. But he asserted there were people who were not alt-right who were “very quietly” protesting the removal of Lee’s statue. But that’s wrong. There were white supremacists. There were counterprotesters. And there were heavily armed anti-government militias who showed up on Saturday. “Although Virginia is an open-carry state, the presence of the militia was unnerving to law enforcement officials on the scene,” The Post reported.

I bolded the missing context. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Snopes factchecked this claim: On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people. Besides rating it false, Snopes also said this: He then made a statement from his golf course in New Jersey that began: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides." These statements received widespread backlash for failing to address the presence of Nazis and white supremacists explicitly, supporting our brief mention. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no missing context. I noted that Trump was talking about "what he perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be more mundane right wing protestors." WaPo's Kessler is asserting that Trump was wrong to believe there were peaceful protestors, not that he was not talking about supposed peaceful protestors. If someone thinks that Jussie Smollett's was attacked by racist homophobic lynchers, and it turns out that the "attackers" were Nigerian hoaxsters, it does not mean they think Nigerian hoaxsters are racist homophobic lynchers, but rather mistakenly assumed there were any there in the first place. Relevant conclusion from Kessler: there were no quiet protesters against removing the statue that weekend. That’s just a figment of the president’s imagination." Kessler is not claiming Trump is calling white supremacists very fine people, rather that he was mistaken to believe there were more mundane protestors other than white supremacists, which is exactly what I highlighted.

On Snopes, your comment has a similar problem of conflating the statements made by RS. Not having a strong enough direct condemnation is far different from "Moral equivalence" between white supremacists and counterprotestors. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Both versions are problematic and weaselly. Something like Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides", were criticized for allegedly implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protester. Since there are fact checking sources that have added additional context, "allegedly" prevents the article using Wiki voice. I support rewording this as the status quo is misleading, but the replacement needs to be workshopped first. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the points in the prior discussion and this one boil down to how much any given editor gives due weight to which parts of Trump's statements. There isn't really much dispute about what he said so much as what, of what he said, is important. I'd suggest we should be guiding this on what reliable sources (preferably academic) have to say about his comments. For instance An Obscured View of "Both Sides": Default Whiteness and the Protest Paradigm in Television News Coverage of the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" Rally. By: Chuang, Angie, Tyler, Autumn, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 10776990, Sep2023, Vol. 100, Issue 3 concludes If Unite the Right's rhetorical strategy of minimizing and recasting the language of White supremacy proved to initially influence mainstream news media to do the same, then it may have been Trump's own "very fine people on both sides" language that forced the public—and the news media as part of it—to take their own sides more decisively. Although journalists' awareness of the differences between "alt-right" and "White supremacist," or "racially motivated" and "racist" may have been codified, a deeper awareness of the systemic patterns that made such a distortion-as-elision possible seems warranted. If, in the words of Nakayama and Krizek, we are to make the "invisible center" of Whiteness visible, then presumptive Whiteness and colorblindness, as was demonstrated in television-news coverage of Unite the Right, must be identified and deconstructed. This would suggest that greater significance is given to "fine people on both sides" than is given to the qualifiers that followed it. However as this is only a single source I don't find myself committed sufficiently to a position to say whether the text should be retained as-is. I would instead implore other editors to review academic sources and make decisions guided by the relative significance given in such. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  Continuing to review sources:

  1. White Supremacy on CNN and Fox: AC 360 and Hannity Coverage of the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' Rally. By: el-Nawawy, Mohammed, Hamas Elmasry, Mohamad, Journalism Practice, 17512786, Jun2023, Vol. 17, Issue 5 puts a lot of emphasis on the context in which Trump said the "both sides" line before pivoting to an analysis of how this rhetoric was used in the media. For instance it highlights Guests were often explicit about allegations of anti-white racism and anti-Semitism. For example, on August 15, Clark associated the "Antifa" and "Black Lives Matter" protest movements with "neo-Nazis." Also on August 15, Elder said, "Let's condemn all bigots, whether it's [white supremacist] David Duke or whether it's [Black Democratic politician] Maxine Waters." Elder also argued that Black civil rights activist Al Sharpton is "one of the nation's biggest anti-Semites." On August 16, Gingrich said, "I think we should condemn racism ... on both sides."
  2. President Trump and Charlottesville: Uncivil Mourning and White Supremacy By Perry, Samuel, Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric. 2018, Vol. 8 Issue 1/2, p57-71. 15p. does not give much credence to Trump's qualifiers, instead quite explicitly saying that Trump was attempting to create a moral equivalency between Nazis and the left.
  3. Judgment and condemnation: How we love it! By: Peters, Ted, Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 00122033, Mar2018, Vol. 57, Issue 1 doesn't care much at all about additional context on Trump's statements saying unequivocally, the president blamed the victims of the violence along with the perpetrators of the violence for the violence.
  4. Contumelious oratory: reflecting on rhetorical forms in the Trump administration. By: Steiner, Rebecca J., Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15456870, Nov-Dec2020, Vol. 28, Issue 5 goes farther than disregarding the qualifiers Trump used and instead focuses on the language Trump failed to use concerning the participants of UTR, saying: He refused to condemn the protestors by using terms like "anti-Semitism," "evil," "Nazis," or "victims," (Man, [75]). By leaving those terms strategically absent, Trump did little to rouse the national conscience against anti-Semitism. This may have been a strategic move to placate his supporters (BBC, [47]b). Historian Deborah Lipstadt suggests moves like these show Trump is an "anti-Semitic enabler," because he's very careful not to criticize his followers (Lipstadt, [70]; Morrison, [84]).

  So now that I've had a chance to review more literature I think I'm ready to say that the Current wording most closely aligns with the academic perspective on Trump's rhetoric. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  To uphold Wikipedia’s standards, it’s advisable to integrate both academic and non-academic reliable sources. This approach ensures a balanced, neutral, and comprehensive representation of topics, aligning with Wikipedia’s core content policies. There's nothing policy wise to suggest that we preferably use academic sources. Adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy requires balancing multiple perspectives. Utilizing diverse reliable sources ensures that no single viewpoint dominates the narrative. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia prefers subject matter expertise over a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE and frankly most newspapers do not employ subject matter experts in rhetoric. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also please review WP:NEWSORG which says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics the study of rhetoric is, very much, an academic topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm quite familiar with the policy you're attempting to apply here, but the argument that this is an academic topic that supersedes journalistic reliable sources is frankly absurd. This isn't a complicated scientific discussion about physics. Nemov (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, it's a complicated social-scientific / humanities discussion concerning the structure of political rhetoric. WP:NEWSORG doesn't specify hard sciences; it specifies academic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  The expertise required to analyze this topic consists of having secondary school levels of literacy and access to a transcript. Social science alchemy derived from some papers that barely anyone has ever read, from sources that barely anyone has ever heard of, cited by barely anyone, hardly justifies removal of basic context that multiple highly prominent fact checking RS reviewing this issue in particular have described as necessary. Not to mention the questionable application of some of the papers' findings you are citing to support the included text.

  Can you please explain how Chuang and Tyler's statements in a paper with a whopping 9 citations about how If, in the words of Nakayama and Krizek, we are to make the "invisible center" of Whiteness visible, then presumptive Whiteness and colorblindness, as was demonstrated in television-news coverage of Unite the Right, must be identified and deconstructed. supports the current wording against the proposed wording? Does it benefit this Wikipedia article to make the invisible center of Whiteness more visible by identifying and deconstructing the presumptive Whiteness and colorblindness through omitting the positions of multiple fact checking RS? KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I actually quoted the relevant section of Chung and Tyler's article. Frankly an interrogation of default whiteness in reportage is very apropos for identifying an appropriately neutral interpretation of Trump's statements and their reception. And, you will note, I was not fully convinced bu that paper alone and subsequently provided four additional citations. As events become increasingly historical they should increasingly depend on academic sources. This is very in keeping with the WP:RS policy and associated guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:RS policy says to completely omit basic context and perspectives from multiple factcheckers across different sources with highly reliable reputations due to their whiteness? KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you propose peer review is inferior to Snopes and their ilk? Regardless - I didn't say to disregard newsmedia, just to give its arguments less weight than academia for determining a neutral summary.Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Where do I propose inferiority to Snopes? I'm sure we can all agree that it is important to get the academic perspective about papers highlighting the invisible center of Whiteness and similar ilk, which is why the proposed change keeps the content of "criticized as implying a moral equivalence" from such valuable perspectives.

  If I were to propose inferiority, it would be to state in wikivoice a direct refutation of that claim ie. "criticized as implying a moral equivalence, which has been refuted".

  If I were to propose neutrality, it would to state with attribution the position of fact checkers like Snopes, ie. "some fact checking organizations have said that Trump was not referring to white supremacists".

  The proposal is if anything, putting Snopes and other fact checkers in an inferior position, by merely including the same context that they highlighted and used to reach opposite conclusions to the current content, without even including their conclusions. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Conclusions by news organisations vs academia seems like false equivalence, does it not? Policy WP:NOT ie WP:NOTNEWS seems very relevant here. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it is a false equivalence and one designed to increase the weight on qualifiers around his statements even when academic rhetoricians have treated those qualifiers as not particularly relevant so there's an NPOV problem too. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Good thing the sources used are fact checking reviews of incident years after it occurred, something that the "enduring notability" bit referenced in WP:NOTNEWS highlights, DN.

  Simonm223, but you really only have one source that even off-handedly supports complete omission of basic context around Trump's statements, which is the one talking about deconstruction of the invisible center of whiteness, which is why I am asking you to please elaborate on how much deconstruction the invisible center of whiteness must undergo in this case and the extent that whiteness needs to be interrogated for multiple fact checkers. Is there such a need to interrogate and deconstruct the invisible center of whiteness so as to omit all basic context? Is this what Chuang and Tyler recommend as crucially necessary?

  The other quotes from the sources you provide aren't particularly supportive of omitting all possible context. The quote provided from Mohammed and Mohamad paper with 8 citations (including a self-cite) doesn't seem to focus on the topic, and instead focuses on complaining about television segments with people like Larry Elder.

  I'll AGF your descriptor of the Perry paper with no quotes, his perspective is fully covered in both the proposed and current wording though, does he delve into the issue through advocating for removal of all basic context?

  The quote you gave from the Peters paper with 0 citations in Dialog: A Journal of Theology is pretty short, but looking at the abstract for it, he seems to be advocating for If the biblical gospel proclaims that we are justified before God by grace and not via self-justification through condemnation, could we turn our attention more directly to those victimized by the conflict at hand? Specifically, could we listen to the voices of African Americans, Jews, America's Deep South, America's Southwest, and the disenfranchised white working class? Maybe there's a policy I missed or something that says Wikipedia should abide by theological teachings derived from the biblical gospel's proclamations, or you can elaborate on your review of the paper and how it supports omitting basic context? I do see something about WP:SCHOLARSHIP and associated warning against low cited papers, isolated studies, and POV and peer review in journals, which might be relevant for all the papers you're bringing up here.

  The quote from the Steiner paper with 4 citations is a broader "he didn't criticize enough" item that doesn't really deal with the proposed or current wording. Maybe there's a broader piece of Steiner's theory of contumelious oratory that you can elaborate on with relevance to the proposed wording? KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  No matter how many times you repeat a quote that you personally seem to find absurd it doesn't an academic paper less a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which quote is that? For my part, I've stated that it's certainly important to get these academic perspectives, and noted that both the current and revised versions of the text contain such perspectives, without any direct refutation or exclusion. However, you are additionally advocating for omission of basic context, which from the sources you have brought up, is seemingly only backed by Chuang and Tyler in an off-handed way at most, (maybe Peters?, albeit not in the quoted passage from his paper). Can you please elaborate on how the passages you yourself quoted support this? It looks like a significant stretch of the content of the papers to claim that they support the current text over the revised text. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Retain current wording and refrain from polemic weaselness. Nothing of substance has changed since the last time this was discussed. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep current wording and better organize your material. Prose discussion is at §Race relations in first presidency, and complete video of the whole actual speech is way down the page in §Racial and gender views in §Political practice and rhetoric. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep current wording: While I'm sympathetic to the general idea of adding more context, if we included the context that supporters wanted to include, WP:NPOV demands we would need to also include the context that there were no non-white supremacists at the rally and that Trump was either mistaken or lying. I think that expanding a single sentence to that degree would be WP:UNDUE in this article and so I think the current wording is fine as a summary. If readers want the full context, they can go over to Unite the Right Rally where the full history of Trump's comments about the rally is gone over in detail. Loki (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Keep current wording as well. I agree with this point. Simply put, he is clearly talking about "both sides" in attendance, meaning the white supremacists, those who organized it in the first place and the counter protesters. Adding more contexts further muddle his statement to the point that it is no longer clear, necessitating more contexts. This could even be one of those instances when Trump contradicted himself. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Support change important context is being deliberately left out in the current wording. Even snopes and other leftwing media have directly commented on how misleading it is to leave out the additional statement he made. It is directly relevant and completely changes the message if left out, and it was said within the same breath practically. It completely changes the message to leave out the full context of the quote and is therefore irresponsible to do so. Ratgomery (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support change to 'Proposed wording': As someone who wasn't aware that Trump did qualify his statement that he wasn't including the neo-Nazis and nationalists, I do think it misleading to not include that part of his statement. Imo, it would be better to rewrite it as: Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally, Trump condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides." On another occasion, he said that there were "very fine people on both sides," and that "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." His comments were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters. If folks believe there is evidence that Trump was wrong about there being folks who weren't neo-nazis nor nationalists on the side of neo-nazis and nationalists, then that ought to be included as well. FropFrop (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

On another occasion. This is how the [NY Times described] that occasion (August 15, 2017, press conference): Abandoning his precisely chosen and carefully delivered condemnations of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis from a day earlier, the president furiously stuck by his initial reaction to the unrest in Charlottesville. He drew the very moral equivalency for which a bipartisan chorus, and his own advisers, had already criticized him. Transcript of the press conference here. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not exactly the most up-to-date source. We should prefer sources that have the advantage of not being created in the heat of the moment. Riposte97 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Change Neither version is perfect, and one could question if it is even necessary to include either version. However, more context is better, especially in this case. CarroGil (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support change - I would agree with @Ratgomery's & @CarroGil's logic. Wouldn't consider either version perfect, but as is has problems. Omitting the additional statement changes the nuance of the supplied quote, so I would say change is definitely needed.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump answering questions about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville

• Comment. We have 2 open RfCs at odds. The press conference video of what Trump actually said is proposed to be removed in Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_the_Political_Practice_and_Rhetoric_section. Kindly recover it. It's more convincing than arguing about it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  They are not 'at odds'. This is a discrete issue that should be dealt with on its own merits. Riposte97 (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the press conference that is proposed for deletion below in another RfC. Maybe it will help this RfC. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: It is my first time hearing about this so I don't feel comfortable enough to vote, but as someone who wasn't aware of this situation, reading through the proposed changes I think including his statement about neo-Nazis and white supremacists would be useful to get more context. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. There is no BLP violation. We're describing the reactions to Trump's reaction — he looked at rally participants waving far-right, Nazi, and Confederate flags, brandishing weapons, and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and said that he condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides". The alleged "missing context" is from Trump's third statement three days after the Unite the Right rally; in the same statement he again said that both sides were to blame and that there were "very fine people on both sides". RS did not "revisit[] certain things" since the inauguration, as someone said in the above discussion; Snopes fact-checked a post on Truth Social, other RS fact-checked the Snopes article, and the NY Times reacted to a Trump comment outside the Manhattan courthouse during his criminal trial.

Snopes fact-checked a 2024 Truth Social post that made a claim our text doesn't make. Our cited source, the Washington Post, then fact-checked the Snopes article, saying that it got a lot of traction on the pro-Trump internet because it provided precisely the headline that Trump has long sought on the subject. But supposedly exonerating Trump’s response to the violence that unfolded in Charlottesville depends heavily on ignoring the context for what he said and when he said it — in context, Trump was indeed downplaying the action of the racist actors involved. David Corn at Mother Jones also fact-checked the Snopes article and came to the same conclusion as our cited source: While Trump had offered criticism of the far-right racist radicals, there were no other people on the other side. His insistence that there had been decent folks within the ranks of the Unite the Right protest—which was organized by Nazis and white supremacists—was an utterly inaccurate assertion. It conveyed a false moral equivalency and provided, to a degree, acceptance of this hatefest. Trump was essentially saying, "It wasn’t all bad." The New Yorker source is an opinion written two days after the election, guessing about a "possible" shift of some Hispanic and Black voters to Trump.

In April 2024, on the occasion of Trump "minimiz[ing] the violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville" after a hearing during his criminal trial, the New York Times "revisited" the rally: In Charlottesville's aftermath, Mr. Trump repeatedly drew a moral equivalency between the white supremacists — who brandished swastikas, Confederate flags and "Trump/Pence" signs — and peaceful counterprotesters, asserting that there were "very fine people on both sides."

Adding the sentence violates NPOV. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose proposed wording & support what Simonm223 is doing -- per the sources presented above, especially "White Supremacy on CNN and Fox: AC 360 and Hannity Coverage of the Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' Rally" that draws analogy between Trump's attempts at false balance and Unite the Right's own. Also, the fact that per another commenter above there were no non-white supremacists at the rally. I believe this does need more context to be added, but not the kind of selective context proposed. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep current wording and reject the proposed addition. We have to reflect the weight and focus in the highest-quality reliable sources, which simply didn't give the parts being inserted here significant weight. Our job isn't to determine what Trump really meant, it's to reflect the best available sources with weight and focus that reflects their position. And trying to "correct the record" or the like would be WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If this were actually essential context, more sources would cover it prominently relative to the vast amount of coverage these comments received. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support The current wording is a prime example of undue weight. However, I would remove "though" as a WP:EDITORIAL violation and replace it with a semi-colon. The current wording is blatantly trying to spin a narrative that is contradicted in the very same speech. MB2437 19:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support - The new wording is more accurate and in line with WP:BLP requirements and WP:NPOV. This is coming recently covered by Snopes as an issue when reporting on the event. So we should update the cover contemporary views on the subject. It is also required per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, to not include would be a BLP violation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments: Unite the Right

There's an open discussion on this talk page (Talk:Donald Trump#Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017). The last discussion in November 2024 resulted in Keep current wording. IMO this RfC is disruptive but I've been involved in the previous discussions and in the section at Unite the Right rally, so somewhat reluctant to get into this every few months. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

A RFC is probably the only way forward to put it to rest and looking at all the recent sources its smart to review the working as RS have been examining it more now that its been a few years and they have more perspective. Not clearly not disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As long as it's not beating the same dead horse with no cause to do so. DN (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't undo the archiving of the open discussion to Archive 194, so copying it here:

Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017

Trump comments on Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, VA, Aug 11–12, 2017 Changing the heading of this discussion from "WP:MANDY" to what this discussion is about, i.e., adding Trump's disclaimer to the current long-standing content. The latest previous discussions: November 2024, February 2024, June/July 2022, October 2021 Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Zaathras in this edit, you reverted citing MANDY. I'm not really sure how that applies, seeing as the caveat to the statement seems to have been made at the time the criticised statement was made. Riposte97 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC) It is standard denial, and also overdetail for this article that is already addressed in the Charlottesville article. Zaathras (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC) I saw this when it originally started being removed/added a while ago (I don't know which one happened first, or what the status quo is), but I didn't have a strong opinion either way at that time. But I've come up with my thoughts. The following is a copy of the text (with the statement in it) with the important parts highlighted. Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.[205] In a January 2018 discussion of immigration legislation, he reportedly referred to El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African nations as "shithole countries".[206] His remarks were condemned as racist.[207] He further stated "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally". So, the question for me is why is this important to overcome MANDY. Well, it's important because in Trump's eyes, people misinterpreted one of his past comments to be a "moral equivalence between..." So, he thought he was making sure that his comments were clearly not misconstrued. The problem here is that this importance is unclear from the current text. The whole section is all out of whack in terms of chronological order - starting with a 2017 event, followed by moving to the 2020 event, and then this sentence in question being back to the 2017 event, then on to a 2019 event, etc. So no, I don't really think MANDY applies. Clarifying your words in the moment is not the same type of denial that would happen after the fact. And I'd argue that including the fact some of his comments were considered racist without including that he in the moment attempted to clarify those claims is a BLP violation. People mis-speak - that's a fact of life - from minor uses of the wrong word/phrase, to full on freudian slips where someone says something they completely didn't mean, if they correct themselves in the moment, it's disparaging to not include that information when discussing the purported bad claim. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC) It's not a BLP violation. We're describing the reactions to Trump's reaction — he looked at rally participants waving far-right, Nazi, and Confederate flags, brandishing weapons, and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and said that he condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides". The sentence Riposte added is from Trump's third statement about the Unite the Right rally three days later; in the same statement he again said that both sides were to blame and that there were "very fine people on both sides". We've discussed this several times. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Except that the 'both sides' comment is explicitly included without the contemporaneous clarification. If I said 'Hitler was good at being evil', then chopping the statement to claim I just said 'Hitler was good' would be a clear BLP violation. That's analogous to what the article currently does. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Both sentences would be struck under WP:V; see also Godwin's law. You were involved in the November 2024 discussion that ended in a consensus to not include, so why add the sentence four months later?. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Correcting myself — the sentence was added by another editor who believes to be one of the few non-idiotic wikipedia editors here. Mandy or not — if you think this detail needs to be included, then per NPOV the other details (the other statements Trump made in the same speech) will also have to be included, as well as his silence after the Tiki torch Nazi-style rally and his insistence on "both sides/many sides" being to blame for Charlottesville. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC) I’m fine with that. It's the omission I have a problem with. Riposte97 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Yeah that makes sense to me. Looks like Mandy does not apply and could be seen as a BLP violation to not include the rest of what he said. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC) We've had this discussion, again and again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Consensus has been challenged, and seems to have been overturned. Riposte97 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC) No, it hasn't been overturned. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC) I think an RfC is the best way forward here. Riposte97 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Because you don't agree with the consensus reached after a discussion that was open for three weeks from October to November last year? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC) To get wider participation than the same few editors that always decline adding the content, I assume. Why else would you call an RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC) wider participation — the discussion lasted three weeks, and this page has more than 4,000 watchers. That's a pretty big forum. Why else would you call an RFC? Oh, I dunno — supporting the losing side, 2:8? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC) This incident was over seven years ago. Nothing has changed. With all that is going on in this article, this is a huge waste of editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Great, than should be an easy slam dunk, get over it you two. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC) get over it you two I beg your pardon? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC) I think it's pretty reasonable to start an RfC in circumstances where it seems eminently possible that editors might choose to adopt new wording. Lots has been reassessed since the inauguration, including because RS have revisited certain things in reflecting on Trump's first presidency. I haven't revisited the older discussion, which I will do now, but from memory it was not as specific as adding a few words on Trump's caveat, which is how I intend to formulate the RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC) because RS have revisited certain things in reflecting on Trump's first presidency. My usual comment: please present the RS that have revisited this particular "thing" since the inauguration. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC) I mean pretty simple honestly.[20][21][22][23] All recent, all RS, and all talking about it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Revisit—not really. Snopes fact-checked a 2024 Truth Social post that made a claim our text doesn't make. Our cited source, the Washington Post, then fact-checked the Snopes article, saying that it got a lot of traction on the pro-Trump internet because it provided precisely the headline that Trump has long sought on the subject. But supposedly exonerating Trump’s response to the violence that unfolded in Charlottesville depends heavily on ignoring the context for what he said and when he said it — in context, Trump was indeed downplaying the action of the racist actors involved. David Corn at Mother Jones also fact-checked the Snopes article and came to the same conclusion as our cited source: While Trump had offered criticism of the far-right racist radicals, there were no other people on the other side. His insistence that there had been decent folks within the ranks of the Unite the Right protest—which was organized by Nazis and white supremacists—was an utterly inaccurate assertion. It conveyed a false moral equivalency and provided, to a degree, acceptance of this hatefest. Trump was essentially saying, "It wasn’t all bad." The New Yorker source is an opinion written two days after the election, guessing about a "possible" shift of some Hispanic and Black voters to Trump. In April 2024, on the occasion of Trump "minimiz[ing] the violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville" after a hearing during his criminal trial, the New York Times "revisited" the rally: In Charlottesville's aftermath, Mr. Trump repeatedly drew a moral equivalency between the white supremacists — who brandished swastikas, Confederate flags and "Trump/Pence" signs — and peaceful counterprotesters, asserting that there were "very fine people on both sides." Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on the Political Practice and Rhetoric section

Should the three-paragraph version of the Rhetoric section discussed above be implemented? Riposte97 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Text

Political practice and rhetoric Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. Trump's political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism. Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him. Before and throughout his presidency, Trump promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama birtherism, the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory movement QAnon, the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections.As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness. Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. In June 2017, the White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. 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. In response, he tweeted that social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". In the days after the storming of the Capitol, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage.The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about a hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about Trump's stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. The Atlantic characterized the suits as an intimidation tactic. By 2024, he 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. In 2024, Trump sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos said on-air that a jury had found him civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. The case was settled in December with ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, apologizing for the inaccurate claims about Trump and agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump's future presidential library.

Sources

Current text

Political practice and rhetoric Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, and Rhetoric of Donald Trump Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. His political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of his actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. Trump pushed for an expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. He explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. His rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric, and agenda of Christian nationalism. Racial and gender views Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. In a 2018 national poll, about half of respondents said he is racist; a greater proportion believed that he emboldened racists. Several studies and surveys found that racist attitudes fueled his political ascent and were more important than economic factors in determining the allegiance of Trump voters. Racist and Islamophobic attitudes are strong indicators of support for Trump. He has also been accused of racism for insisting a group of five black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, even after they were exonerated in 2002 when the actual rapist confessed and his DNA matched the evidence. In 2024, the men sued Trump for defamation after he said in a televised debate that they had committed the crime and killed the woman. Trump answering questions about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville In 2011, Trump became the leading proponent of the racist "birther" conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States. He claimed credit for pressuring the government to publish Obama's birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent. He acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. in September 2016, though reportedly expressed birther views privately in 2017. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he made false attacks against the racial identity of his opponent, Kamala Harris, that were described as reminiscent of the birther conspiracy theory. Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations. In October 2016, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that, "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." He characterized the comments as "locker-room talk". The incident's widespread media exposure led to his first public apology, videotaped during his 2016 presidential campaign. Link to violence and hate crimes Further information: Rhetoric of Donald Trump § Violence and dehumanization Trump's refusal to condemn the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate and his comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", were attributed to increased recruitment for the pro-Trump group. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in the U.S., both for and against him. He is described as embracing extremism, conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon, and far-right militia movements to a greater extent than any modern American president, and engaging in stochastic terrorism. Research suggests Trump's rhetoric is associated with an increased incidence of hate crimes, and that he has an emboldening effect on expressing prejudicial attitudes due to his normalization of explicit racial rhetoric. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Numerous defendants investigated or prosecuted for violent acts and hate crimes cited his rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive leniency. A nationwide review by ABC News in May 2020 identified at least 54 criminal cases, from August 2015 to April 2020, in which he was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence mostly by white men and primarily against minorities. Trump's normalization and revisionist history of the January 6 Capitol attack, and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters, were described by counterterrorism researchers as encouraging future political violence. Conspiracy theories Main article: List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Since before his first presidency, Trump has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama "birtherism", global warming being a hoax, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections. After the 2020 presidential election, he promoted conspiracy theories for his defeat that were characterized as "the big lie". False or misleading statements Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump Fact-checkers from The Washington Post, the Toronto Star, and CNN compiled data on "false or misleading claims" (orange background), and "false claims" (violet foreground), respectively. Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods are a distinctive part of his political identity and have been described as firehosing. His false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied 30,573 false or misleading statements made by him during his first presidency, increasing in frequency over time. Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, while others had more far-reaching effects, such as his unproven promotion of antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19, causing a U.S. shortage of these drugs and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served his domestic political purposes. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices weakened public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it. He habitually does not apologize for his falsehoods. Until 2018, the media rarely referred to his falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements. Social media Main articles: Social media use by Donald Trump and Twitter use by Donald Trump Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He posted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. He often used Twitter to communicate directly with the public and sideline the press; in 2017, his press secretary said that his tweets constituted official presidential statements. Twitter began attaching fact-checks to tweets in which Trump made false claims in May 2020. In response, he said social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". After the January 6 attack, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and correlated with a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation on Twitter. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following. Elon Musk, after acquiring Twitter, reinstated his Twitter account in November 2022. Meta Platforms' two-year ban lapsed in January 2023, allowing him to return to Facebook and Instagram, although in 2024, he continued to call the company an "enemy of the people". In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle a 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. Relationship with the press Further information: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Trump talking to the press, March 2017 Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage. The New York Times writer Amy Chozick wrote in 2018 that his media dominance enthralled the public and created "must-see TV". 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". In 2018, journalist Lesley Stahl said that he had privately told her that he intentionally discredited the media "so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you". The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about one hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about his stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. By 2024, he 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.

References
References

Survey

• Yes - the section is currently a mess. It's composed of dozens of snippets haphazardly added over the years with no curation or overall structure. Thank you to @ErnestKrause for all your work in pushing this long-overdue edit forward. The proposal is a huge improvement.

Riposte97 (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - I agree with @Riposte97 about this. Thanks for this, @ErnestKrause. My only additional comment is to emphasize that editors should do their best to make sure the article's phrasing and word choice is neutral given how divisive Trump is. The absolute last thing we want is to appear biased. But your proposed edits seem to me like they fit what we're looking for in addition to what Riposte said. G o m m e h 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - Strong support for both Riposte97 and Gommeh above about this edit. The wording of the edit is neutral and includes useful enhancements suggested by other editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• No per WP:NPOV but especially object to the line "Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him" as | victim blaming Ratgomery (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Would you agree that the current section is far worse from a POV perspective? One step at a time! Riposte97 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes This is well-sourced, concise and clear. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  The omissions, or the re-writes? DN (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, very well written and neutral, also a lot shorter, well done guys. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve moved to conditional support on a sentence on misogyny being added and one or two on the Big lie. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. The subsections of Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric are written at summary-level per consensus item 37. The section covers the last 9 years, beginning with the 2016 campaign. If there is any "bloat" in the text, it needs to be discussed individually. This RfC proposes removal of about half of the mostly long-standing content along with about half of the reliable sources. And, once the content has been removed, the related summarized text in the lead, and the respective consensus items, would also have to be removed — two examples below. And all of this without discussion of the merits of the text. (The consensus on this page has been to not make such massive edits.) Example 1:

  Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods are a distinctive part of his political identity and have been described as firehosing. His false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied 30,573 false or misleading statements made by him during his first presidency, increasing in frequency over time.
  Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, while others had more far-reaching effects, such as his unproven promotion of antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19, causing a U.S. shortage of these drugs and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served his domestic political purposes. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices weakened public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it. He habitually does not apologize for his falsehoods. Until 2018, the media rarely referred to his falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

  "condensed" to read

  As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness.

  Example 2:

  Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations. In October 2016, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that, "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." He characterized the comments as "locker-room talk". The incident's widespread media exposure led to his first public apology, videotaped during his 2016 presidential campaign.

deleted in its entirety. The affected lead sentence: Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist or misogynistic, and he has made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Affected consensus items: 30 and 51. Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As Kowal2701 has stated in the Comment section below: "That can be summarised in a single sentence at the start of the second paragraph. I also would have thought the disinformation about the results of the 2020 election would be due." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Example #3. Deleting the "Link to violence and hate crimes" section with the exception of this sentence Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in the U.S., both for and against him creates a false equivalence that's not supported by the sources. Quote: individuals who express approval for Trump are also significantly more likely to endorse positive descriptors for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and are more likely express support for the use of political violence more broadly. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This proposal is also boldly adding new material under the guise of trimming/condensing. Here's the

Current text with proposed deletions and added text (bolded)

Political practice and rhetoric Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, and Rhetoric of Donald Trump Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. Trump's His political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of his actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. Trump pushed for an expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump He explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's His rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric, and agenda of Christian nationalism. Racial and gender views Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. In a 2018 national poll, about half of respondents said he is racist; a greater proportion believed that he emboldened racists. Several studies and surveys found that racist attitudes fueled his political ascent and were more important than economic factors in determining the allegiance of Trump voters. Racist and Islamophobic attitudes are strong indicators of support for Trump. He has also been accused of racism for insisting a group of five black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, even after they were exonerated in 2002 when the actual rapist confessed and his DNA matched the evidence. In 2024, the men sued Trump for defamation after he said in a televised debate that they had committed the crime and killed the woman. Trump answering questions about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, In 2011, Trump became the leading proponent of the racist "birther" conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States. He claimed credit for pressuring the government to publish Obama's birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent. He acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. in September 2016, though reportedly expressed birther views privately in 2017. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he made false attacks against the racial identity of his opponent, Kamala Harris, that were described as reminiscent of the birther conspiracy theory. Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations. In October 2016, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that, "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." He characterized the comments as "locker-room talk". The incident's widespread media exposure led to his first public apology, videotaped during his 2016 presidential campaign. Link to violence and hate crimes Further information: Rhetoric of Donald Trump § Violence and dehumanization Trump's refusal to condemn the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate and his comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", were attributed to increased recruitment for the pro-Trump group. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in the U.S., both for and against him. He is described as embracing extremism, conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon, and far-right militia movements to a greater extent than any modern American president, and engaging in stochastic terrorism. Research suggests Trump's rhetoric is associated with an increased incidence of hate crimes, and that he has an emboldening effect on expressing prejudicial attitudes due to his normalization of explicit racial rhetoric. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Numerous defendants investigated or prosecuted for violent acts and hate crimes cited his rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive leniency. A nationwide review by ABC News in May 2020 identified at least 54 criminal cases, from August 2015 to April 2020, in which he was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence mostly by white men and primarily against minorities. Trump's normalization and revisionist history of the January 6 Capitol attack, and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters, were described by counterterrorism researchers as encouraging future political violence. Conspiracy theories Main article: List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Since before his first presidency Before and throughout his presidency, Trump has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama "birtherism", the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, global warming being a hoax the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections. After the 2020 presidential election, he promoted conspiracy theories for his defeat that were characterized as "the big lie". False or misleading statements Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump Fact-checkers from The Washington Post, the Toronto Star, and CNN compiled data on "false or misleading claims" (orange background), and "false claims" (violet foreground), respectively. As a candidate and president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness. His falsehoods are a distinctive part of his political identity and have been described as firehosing. His false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied 30,573 false or misleading statements made by him during his first presidency, increasing in frequency over time. Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, while others had more far-reaching effects, such as his unproven promotion of antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19, causing a U.S. shortage of these drugs and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served his domestic political purposes. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices weakened public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it. He habitually does not apologize for his falsehoods. Until 2018, the media rarely referred to his falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements. Social media Main articles: Social media use by Donald Trump and Twitter use by Donald Trump Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. He often used Twitter to communicate directly with the public and sideline the press; in 2017, his the White House press secretary said that Trump's his tweets constituted were official presidential statements. After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began attaching fact-checks to tweets in which Trump made false claims to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020. In response, he tweeted that said social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". In the days after the storming of the Capitol After the January 6 attack, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and correlated with prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation on Twitter. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following. Elon Musk, after acquiring Twitter, reinstated his Twitter account in November 2022. Meta Platforms' two-year ban lapsed in January 2023, allowing him to return to Facebook and Instagram, although in 2024, he continued to call the company an "enemy of the people". In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle a 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. Relationship with the press Further information: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage. 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". The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about one hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about his stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. The Atlantic characterized the suits as an intimidation tactic. By 2024, he 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. In 2024, Trump sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos said on-air that a jury had found him civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. The case was settled in December with ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, apologizing for the inaccurate claims about Trump and agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump's future presidential library. References

Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. Three paras was worth a shot but this is worse than prior. Needed headings are gone. Veracity is buried inside a para with apparent topic sentence about racism. One third of proposed text addresses the media but omits the most important organization, the Associated Press. And previous input has been ignored. You omit misogyny. Embarrassing stacks of citations remain. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You previously had asked for "MAGA" to be added and it was added. Ninety percent of the material in the current six subsection version of "Political Practice and Rhetoric in Trump" is from 2017 and 2018, and its very old and not up to date. That section of this article needs to brought up to date in March 2025, and not be stuck back in 2017 and 2018. The three paragraph summary seems to be a step forward for the article to bring it up to date in 2025. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That was your second round ignoring that the new version omits Trump's denigration of women. Other concerns are raised.-SusanLesch (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is the pro-feminism edit which I tried to add to the main article here: [24]. I'm not 'ignoring' this significant issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

(This biography is about Donald Trump.)

Yes it is about Trump. Trump endorsed the pro-feminism position of his wife in his March presidential address which she presented here: [[25]]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You guys made choices to reduce racism to a sentence, to bury lies, and eliminate women. I cannot support your edits. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Very odd statement. I had just presented a pro-feminism edit directly above which Trump endorsed in his presidential address earlier this month. Are you opposed to presenting this pro-feminism edit as attributed to Trump's own statement about his wife in his recent presidential address: [[26]]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This RfC is probably not the best place to litigate inclusion of your edit which was removed. I've moved to strongly oppose your edits to §Political practice and rhetoric. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes — It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. In past, non-RfC, discussions about this proposal I've spoken in more detail, though I am in agreement with the other editors in support above. See also my below comment in this RfC refuting concerns of the 3-paragraph removing WP:DUE examples of Trump's controversies/offensive statements/falsehoods/the rest. DecafPotato (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. There are better ways to condense this without ignoring WP:NPOV. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. (Summoned by bot). Far, far too much sourced content that provides very important background and context of value to the reader is being excised here, touching upon numerous different elements of the man's image and the nature of the movement surrounding it (and research thereof). It is deeply problematic to approach the editing of such a high traffic and important article with this kind of sledgehammer approach, where the content being removed is not just so great in volume, but also so varied in the aspects of the subject that it covers--such that no single principled argument for or against the overall edit/differences in versions can realstically address all of the changes and assure they are policy-compliant. And this is especially an issue where most of the content is longstanding and all of it well sourced. This is frankly an extreme, sloppy, and untenable approach to revision; this should be 15-25 separate proposals, not one... Streamlining is one thing and desireable, but, bluntly, this feels much closer to sanitization--or at the least, certainly not a proper way to approach, propose and implement so much change, while allowing for proper vetting. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Much of that material which you are defending seems to be very old. Ninety percent of the prose there is from 2017 and 2018, and not from 2025. That material seems quite old. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That may very well be, but I am aware of no editorial policy on this project which states that appropriately cited content representing accurate summarization of WP:reliable sources has an expiration date. In fact, to the contrary, we have express policy language which says that removal or alteration of longstanding undistrubed content resulting from robust consensus should be approached with extra care. And I'm not defending any one particular piece of information here. What I'm saying is that attempting to remove so much disparate content touching upon so many different elements of the coverage of the subject in one move is just not an appropriate methodology for handling a situation like this.

Look, this is probably the most high traffic (and in any event, certainly the highest engagement) article in the history of this project. You can rest assured that any single one of those many, many, many statements that are being proposed for removal has benefitted from the input of dozens (if not literally hundreds) of experienced editors over the course of many years, in some of our most well attended article space RfCs and other talk page discussions. That is an insane amount of established consensus that truly no other article can boast of. And yet, here we have a proposal to remove that huge volume of content that is presented in a way such that not even one (let alone all) of those statements is going to get even the tiniest fraction of discussion or consensus for removal, relative to the amount of discussion and consensus that placed them in the article and maintained them there all that time. That is incredibly, unacceptably problematic. This kitchen-sink approach would not be permissable in a low-traffic, low-controversy article. It is certainly not the way forward on this, of all articles.

This proposal needs to go back to the drawing board and to be broken down into many more digestable bits for which actual editorial arguments for or against the inclusion of particular information can be made and weighed. There may very well be an overarching summary style argument to be made for pairing down some of these sections a bit, and strong WP:ONUS/WP:WEIGHT arguments for some of the particular statements being removed that experienced editors will agree to, myself most assuredly included. But trying to remove 60% of the content from a half dozen sections (comprising thousands of KB of long-established, well-sourced consensus text), all in one go, on this article? That's just never going to fly. I can only assume the fact that I am the first respondent to point this out, several days into the RfC, is reflective of the overall level of exhaustion (both within the context of this article and this project, and without) with discussing this particular subject. But I feel I can tell you with confidence that I won't be the last one to point it out. The proponents for these cuts need to do themselves a favour and reorganize this into more manageable bits treated in separate proposals. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm in a situation where I feel that there is place to keep all of that detailed Rhetoric information from 2017 and 2018, which is in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article on Wikipedia. That way all of the very long and old material can be maintained there and the main article for Trump can be developed in a more up to date manner. The 2025 version of critique of Trump is much different today than it was in 2017 and 2018. Make room for the new version of the critique of Trump and move the old material to the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article which already exists on Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that position has merit, by all means continue to advocate for it. But it doesn't in any way obviate the need to actually approach each individual removal from this article with the diligence due to the circumstances of said article and the massive weight of previously established consensus. Whatever the overall vision here, you still just can't expect to succeed by cramming through a massive amount of changes regarding so many difference sections and topics all at once. By all means, if you think you have a better idea for the division of content between the relevant articles, make it known what you plan and then try to implement it one statement or paragraph or short section at a time. Just be aware that many other people have their own very detailed thoughts on that same subject regarding that same cluster of articles. And that the actual removals here will need a lot more discussion of a far more particularized and specific character. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

SnowRise, the problem I see with that position is that it continues the piecemeal approach that has led to the current situation. It implies that every sentence in the article deserves a fight, and will make it all but impossible to take a high-level view.
If there are specific pieces of content you'd like to see preserved, then we can have a conversation about those. However, if you just want to make the general point that bold strategic edits should not be made at all, then I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you or anybody else described an alternative process consistent with WP:CONSENSUS? If so, I missed it. Exactly—did I mention exactly?—how would you modify our long-standing consensus process? Somebody has to think about the actual details, and I don't see anybody else doing that. And what current situation are you referring to that's so awful? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

My object is not to annoy you, but I’m a little confused by your repetition of this point. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD apply to this page. Why would I need to describe an additional process? No page, including this one, is permitted to deviate from policy. Riposte97 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so easily annoyed. Ok, so if you edit (B) en masse, don't complain if you're challenged (R) en masse. If the (D) yields a consensus-to-include en masse, all subsequent changes to that content will require prior consensus, and will be immediately reverted absent said prior consensus. <!-- DO NOT CHANGE this section without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]] item 75. --> That's the existing process. If you're happy with that, we're both happy.

(I doubt many editors will be happy with trying to comply with/enforce the tangle of amendments to the initial consensus-to-include en masse. We'd need a consensus list item just to keep track of all of them, and even that would be a monumental mess within a year or two. Is the list item going to include a copy of the section showing the current sum of all related consensi? How bizarre would that be?)

If you're not happy, we need a new process, which has not been described. To paraphrase Churchill (apparently not), I think our current process is the worst process except for all others. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that process as an outgrowth of what was a crazy time at this page during Trump's first term. I don't know if it's necessary anymore, but the purpose of this section isn't to displace it. Why, if this RfC yields a consensus to update the section, can subsequent changes not be challenged in the usual way per BRD? If someone comes along and replaces the whole thing, I don't think we need a consensus item to cite a challenge to that. Indeed, I think most of the supporters of the current proposal don't think the proposed three paragraphs are perfect, and would be open to debating additions in the future. However, what most people seem to agree on is that the status quo is really not the best we can do. Riposte97 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps my problem is that I've never seen a group of editors reach consensus on so much at one time. You're describing something we've considered recently elsewhere, where I referred to "a whole new kind of consensus"—one that is not binding going forward. Go forth with my best wishes, and I'll work on rewiring my brain. I won't expect to see BOLD edits reverted per this RfC, no matter how many or how large. NOTE TO CLOSER: If there is a consensus to include, please make this crucial point clear in your closure. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

(Um - what about What do you say we let others take it from here??) Did I miss a poll on what most people seem to agree on? The above Downsizing discussion had nine participants, and I don't see a majority supporting the proposal either there or in this RfC so far. Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Not the proposal per se (although I haven't counted). I just meant many no voters seem to agree the current text is not perfect. Riposte97 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There will never be 100% agreement that text on an article is perfect, especially for a controversial figure. What matters is that the text is good enough and that most people agree on it. A chainsaw approach deleting decades of consensus and discussion because it is not "perfect" is not the right way to go about this. BootsED (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I also don't believe the proposed text is perfect. But it's a damn sight better, and that's what matters. Riposte97 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. Whitewashing that goes way too far, using "condensing" as a cover. I also almost spit out my gum at the idea that the subject is in any way "pro-feminist" as argued above. Zaathras (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There were two versions of the summary presented; a two paragraph version and a three paragraph version because the six subsections of the Rhetoric section appeared to be quite old with ninety percent of that section covering 2017 and 2018. It seems highly out of date, and not updated to 2025. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Repeating myself again, but lot of material is not just from 2017 or 2018. In the first paragraph of the section itself, we have sources from 2025, 2024, 2022, 2021, 2020, and 2019. A lot of high-quality scholarly articles will also be slightly older, as they take time to write and go under review. Replacing "older" high-quality sources with "newer" low-quality sources is not the correct way forwards. The fact that a lot of information is from his first presidency is because his second presidency is little over a month old now. BootsED (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I made myself very clear in the talk page discussion above, but apparently I must repeat myself.

For starters, the claim that the page is "too big" so this cut is needed is false. As I've stated previously: "The page for Jimmy Carter is at 15,309 words, Richard Nixon is at 14,015 words, Abraham Lincoln is at 13,718 words, Jesus is at 13,400 words, and this article is at 11,214 words. Removing more at this point is premature." This article will likely sit between 13k and 14k at the end of his second presidency, which still falls below recommended guidelines.

Secondly, the proposal condenses and removes decades of talk page discussion on the format and inclusion of content on the page itself. It removes several visual images and aides that assist readability, and creates a "three-paragraph giant wall of text" with eight main, further, and see also articles at the top.

Third, I also find the removal of information about Trump's comments towards women troubling. I also believe Space4TCatHerder is correct in asserting that this current edit breaks existing consensus items.

Lastly, I'm also afraid that if this edit goes through, it would essentially "lock" this entire section from any edits that do not go trough an RfC process. This itself would break consensus item 43: "The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it". BootsED (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What does 'absolutely not' mean here. Ninety percent of that material is from 2017 and 2018 when it was originally written. Its now very dated and should be brought up to date in 2025. The majority of that material is eight years old and does not even accurately reflect the current state of critique about Donald Trump. That section needs to be trimmed and then it can be brought up to date with new material. Why preserve material mostly centered on his first term when Wikipedia readers of the article today would likely be more interested in the current critique of Donald Trump in 2025, and not preserved material from eight years ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"Absolutely not" means strong oppose. The fact that a lot of information is from his first presidency is because his second presidency is little over a month old now. I don't see how because Trump has been president for over a month now, most of the information about him before his second presidency needs to be cut and removed because it's no longer "up to date" or a "current critique". A lot of what you removed is still accurate and relevant. Is this why you removed all mention of Trump's comments towards women because it is no longer a "current critique"? Is it simply "old news", so no longer warrants a mention? BootsED (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Relevant in 2017 and 2018, is not the same thing as relevant in 2025. Most of that material in that section was discussed and edited back when the first term was prominent back in 2017. It should be condensed to make room for the new 2025 material. Now 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. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

So your answer is yes, Trump's comments towards women is old news and no longer relevant because he's now president in 2025. Gotcha. BootsED (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps if we workshopped a sentence on his attitudes towards women, including any more recent developments? Would that assist? Riposte97 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Full agreement with Riposte97. While creating the 2 paragraph and 3 paragraph versions of those sections, I had invited other editors to make additions and modifications to those versions though most editors did not make those additions. Full support for Riposte97 on this approach. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose -- Reading the arguments above, I think it's better to keep the detail, although organizing haphazardly-made content is always good. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. As others have mentioned, the current version isn't particularly large relative to other such high-profile figures, so the entire rationale here makes no sense; and the current version is more neutral in its broad coverage of Trump's rhetoric, since it better reflects the tone and focus of the highest-quality sources. The argument that some things are "no longer current" is baffling; articles are not supposed to reflect only recent material, but the full history of coverage. The previous version is high-quality, well-researched, and comprehensive; that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, but the rewrite is worse in every way - it needlessly condenses many things that have overwhelming coverage down to single vague sentences, entirely omits other parts that are central to understanding the subject, and severely damages the neutrality of the section by moving it away from a comprehensive summary of coverage. Yes, it's a long section - it's long because this is one of the most crucial and heavily-covered aspects of the topic. Trying to cram it down into three paragraphs was a bad idea to begin with, and the low quality of the result here shows why. Above, the author of this attempt expressed frustration at "piecemeal" efforts to improve the section; but those are difficult precisely because the existing section is, overall, high-quality and accurately reflects an incredibly complex subject that has gotten huge amounts of coverage. Taking a hatchet to the entire section like this is never going to produce something workable or capable of obtaining consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Oh goody, another RfC because the open discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Part Two of downsizing Rhetoric section: 3 paragraph version, opened two weeks ago, isn't going your way. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Riposte97: WP:TPO. It wasn’t an error, and it wasn’t a comment. I provided necessary context for editors not familiar with the page by adding the text you propose to replace and a couple of examples of what is being lost, without editors having to spend a couple of hours switching back and forth between main space and the talk page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to add your comments to the proposal section of an RfC. I am happy to leave the current text (although I have no idea in what world it would take 'a couple of hours' to refer to), but I will move your comments once again. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

not appropriate? Please point out the relevant rule/guideline. I have no idea in what world it would take 'a couple of hours' to refer to — I would hope that editors weighing in on a proposal to remove a massive amount of reliably sourced, mostly long-standing material would take the time to read both versions and look at the sources. How long did it take you to do it? Space4TCatHerder🖖 08:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The following material moved here without my consent. Space4TCatHerder🖖 08:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This covers the period since the 2016 campaign, a total of nine years. The structure makes it a much easier read than the three proposed paragraphs. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

An example for unacceptable editing:

Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods are a distinctive part of his political identity and have been described as firehosing. His false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied 30,573 false or misleading statements made by him during his first presidency, increasing in frequency over time.
Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, while others had more far-reaching effects, such as his unproven promotion of antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19, causing a U.S. shortage of these drugs and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served his domestic political purposes. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices weakened public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it. He habitually does not apologize for his falsehoods. Until 2018, the media rarely referred to his falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

"condensed" to read

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this section can't be improved or updated (Ukraine starting the war by resisting being invaded by Russia comes to mind). What does "as if to impugn his own truthfulness" even mean and what is the source for it? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Another example:

Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations. In October 2016, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that, "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." He characterized the comments as "locker-room talk". The incident's widespread media exposure led to his first public apology, videotaped during his 2016 presidential campaign.

deleted in its entirety. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That can be summarised in a single sentence at the start of the second paragraph. I also would have thought the disinformation about the results of the 2020 election would be due. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that we need this section to compile every false or offensive thing Trump has said. Notable entries should go in their own sections: the Access Hollywood tape belongs in § 2016 presidential election; 2020 election denial belongs in § 2020 presidential election; Unite the Right comments in § Race relations (under first presidency); claims of Ukrainian election interference in § Investigations (also under first term); COVID misinformation in § COVID-19 pandemic; and so on for the rest. DecafPotato (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the expectation going forward, should this pass. It would be a consensus covering three long paragraphs. Are we going to require prior consensus for any change to the section? While not completely unworkable, it would be a departure from the history at this article. One could easily imagine ten amendments to the consensus item after two years—some of them amendments to previous amendments—resulting in a mess that would be largely unmanageable. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary to freeze it in amber. Good faith editors can BRD, and the consensus can evolve. There is a tendency for some editors on this page to be overly deferential to outdated consensuses, but that's not how I will be treating this section. It's an improvement to what's currently there, so it should be supported imo, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon in the future. Riposte97 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't reconcile your words with the philosophy/methodology this article has used for some eight years.

• When it comes to the actual, real-world resolution of disputes, a consensus is of little value if it isn't clearly defined.
• Editors may not deviate from the clearly-defined consensus without prior consensus to do so.
• Consensuses do not have expiration dates.

In the long run, it's a bad idea to say let's modify the article now and worry about the consequences/ramifications later. If one wishes to change the long-standing methodology, they need to describe a workable alternative in detail; you have not done that. Or they can propose eliminating any formal methodology, returning the article to the chaotic Wild West situations seen at many other CTOP articles. Process is important even when it takes longer. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Imo consensuses should apply to focal points of discussions, not preservation of a section Kowal2701 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I gather you're disagreeing with me. Please give examples of a workable closure statement and consensus item, and describe your preferred process for further changes. Like Riposte, you're being vague and failing to consider the difficult task of dealing with the longer-term ramifications. Neither of you have two years of experience with this article, contrasted to a few of us who have 9 or 10 years and have seen what works best (i.e., fails least). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If this succeeds, the only thing there’ll be consensus for is that the proposed version is an improvement on the status quo. That wouldn’t make a useful consensus item. Kowal2701 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could have There should only be one section on political practice and rhetoric, but it misrepresents the discussion here. Kowal2701 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so no consensus item, but still a consensus embodied in this discussion and its closure. Please finish the description: After the consensus is in place, am I allowed to boldly modify the section without prior consensus? If so, I can do that now, so what's the point of the consensus? If that will depend on whether my change affects one of the "focal points of the discussion", when are we going to define what those focal points are? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You may be saying this consensus will be to replace the current section with the proposed text, and nothing more. After the section is replaced, it will be open to BOLD editing like any other. If that's the case, then it's a whole new kind of consensus—one that self-cancels after its first application. This is not inherently bad, but we need to be clear about what we're doing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I was thinking future discussions sparked by bold editing could then make good consensus items, but that still uses up community time. Be interested to hear what proposers think Kowal2701 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss You're right - I see this RfC as a lot more similar to RfCs elsewhere on the project. What we can definitively say is that it will supersede the current text. When edits are made that people don't like, it can simply be challenged and brought to the talk page in the normal course, rather than citing a particular consensus item. Riposte97 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

similar to RfCs elsewhere on the project - can you point out a few of these RfCs? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Riposte97, can you point out a few of these RfCs? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I am merely referring to the policy at WP:CONSENSUS, which applies to this page. Now, you and I have been heard a lot at this RfC. What do you say we let others take it from here? Riposte97 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I just added a hatted version of the current text showing the deletions and additions. Um — seems to me there was some whitewashing involved, no? Racial views down to one sentence; gender views — gone; violence and hate crimes — one sentence left. False or misleading statements was reduced to one sentence but that this vague and weird new clause attached: "as if to impugn his own truthfulness" (I don't see that in the cited sources). These are the kind of bold edits that should be made individually so that they can be challenged individually because whitewashing and other objections. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Helpful! Is it possible to strike the headings which are all gone? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Done (that was fun, miss one little </s> or two, and chaos ensues). Also added the clump of main/further/see also at the top. Tried to strike the images but that didn't work—if I knew how, I'd X them out manually. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I struck the captions. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the inserted section down to here.

Current text with proposed deletions and added text (bolded)

Political practice and rhetoric Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, and Rhetoric of Donald Trump Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. Trump's His political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of his actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. Trump pushed for an expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump He explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's His rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric, and agenda of Christian nationalism. Racial and gender views Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. In a 2018 national poll, about half of respondents said he is racist; a greater proportion believed that he emboldened racists. Several studies and surveys found that racist attitudes fueled his political ascent and were more important than economic factors in determining the allegiance of Trump voters. Racist and Islamophobic attitudes are strong indicators of support for Trump. He has also been accused of racism for insisting a group of five black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, even after they were exonerated in 2002 when the actual rapist confessed and his DNA matched the evidence. In 2024, the men sued Trump for defamation after he said in a televised debate that they had committed the crime and killed the woman. Trump answering questions about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, In 2011, Trump became the leading proponent of the racist "birther" conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States. He claimed credit for pressuring the government to publish Obama's birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent. He acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. in September 2016, though reportedly expressed birther views privately in 2017. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he made false attacks against the racial identity of his opponent, Kamala Harris, that were described as reminiscent of the birther conspiracy theory. Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets. At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations. In October 2016, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which he bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that, "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." He characterized the comments as "locker-room talk". The incident's widespread media exposure led to his first public apology, videotaped during his 2016 presidential campaign. Link to violence and hate crimes Further information: Rhetoric of Donald Trump § Violence and dehumanization Trump's refusal to condemn the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate and his comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", were attributed to increased recruitment for the pro-Trump group. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in the U.S., both for and against him. He is described as embracing extremism, conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon, and far-right militia movements to a greater extent than any modern American president, and engaging in stochastic terrorism. Research suggests Trump's rhetoric is associated with an increased incidence of hate crimes, and that he has an emboldening effect on expressing prejudicial attitudes due to his normalization of explicit racial rhetoric. During his 2016 campaign, he urged or praised physical attacks against protesters or reporters. Numerous defendants investigated or prosecuted for violent acts and hate crimes cited his rhetoric in arguing that they were not culpable or should receive leniency. A nationwide review by ABC News in May 2020 identified at least 54 criminal cases, from August 2015 to April 2020, in which he was invoked in direct connection with violence or threats of violence mostly by white men and primarily against minorities. Trump's normalization and revisionist history of the January 6 Capitol attack, and grant of clemency to all January 6 rioters, were described by counterterrorism researchers as encouraging future political violence. Conspiracy theories Main article: List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump Since before his first presidency Before and throughout his presidency, Trump has promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama "birtherism", the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, global warming being a hoax the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections. After the 2020 presidential election, he promoted conspiracy theories for his defeat that were characterized as "the big lie". False or misleading statements Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump Fact-checkers from The Washington Post, the Toronto Star, and CNN compiled data on "false or misleading claims" (orange background), and "false claims" (violet foreground), respectively. As a candidate and president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness. His falsehoods are a distinctive part of his political identity and have been described as firehosing. His false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied 30,573 false or misleading statements made by him during his first presidency, increasing in frequency over time. Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, while others had more far-reaching effects, such as his unproven promotion of antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19, causing a U.S. shortage of these drugs and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served his domestic political purposes. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices weakened public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it. He habitually does not apologize for his falsehoods. Until 2018, the media rarely referred to his falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements. Social media Main articles: Social media use by Donald Trump and Twitter use by Donald Trump Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted posted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. He often used Twitter to communicate directly with the public and sideline the press; in 2017, his press secretary said that his tweets constituted official presidential statements. After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began attaching fact-checks to tweets in which Trump made false claims to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020. In response, he tweeted that said social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". In the days after the storming of the Capitol After the January 6 attack, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and prompted correlated with a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation on Twitter. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following. Elon Musk, after acquiring Twitter, reinstated his Twitter account in November 2022. Meta Platforms' two-year ban lapsed in January 2023, allowing him to return to Facebook and Instagram, although in 2024, he continued to call the company an "enemy of the people". In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle a 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. Relationship with the press Further information: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage. 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". The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about one hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about his stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. The Atlantic characterized the suits as an intimidation tactic. By 2024, he 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. In 2024, Trump sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos said on-air that a jury had found him civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. The case was settled in December with ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, apologizing for the inaccurate claims about Trump and agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump's future presidential library.

Sources

Notes

I understand that you don't want the section changed, but continuing to insert new messages into the RfC header in an attempt to get your way is not productive. Your fellow editors can make up their own minds without having the point laboured. Riposte97 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

attempt to get your way - isn’t getting your way the reason you started this RfC and responded to a ¡vote with this? That response, BTW, makes it pretty clear that this RfC isn’t about the alleged "mess" haphazardly added over the years with no curation or overall structure. It’s about the bias you and others have been alleging. I’m providing information so other editors don’t all have to spend the two hours I did figuring out exactly what you’re proposing to cut and add. That’s another problem with this proposal. It’s boldly adding new material under the guise of trimming/condensing. Anyway, I’ve moved "Current text with proposed deletions and added text (bolded)" into my !vote, so kindly keep your mitts off it and take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding_to_RfCs. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks good there. Riposte97 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Per the comments of several editors who suggested that a sentence on misogyny was necessary for this reform to proceed, I have added the below text (helpfully suggested by ErnestKrause) into the proposal:

"Trump has a history of belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearances, and referred to them using derogatory epithets."

Impeachments

Trimming and combining of the impeachments sections was proposed here at 15:50, 3 Feb 25 (UTC) and a second editor agreed, with neither one of them mentioning specifics.

• Riposte97 trimmed and combined 17 hours later, between 08:59 and 09:01, 4 Feb 25 (UTC).
• I partially challenged the bold edit two hours later.
• Riposte reverted my partial revert on February 16, saying "reasserting consensus".

I have now partially reverted their edit. Is an archived discussion involving one comment each from three editors in a period of 17 hours considered to have built a consensus that can't be challenged by a fourth editor? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the sublime joy of analyzing complex process issues (not). There's a large degree of similarity between this situation and this one. If that other proposal passes, it will establish a consensus for a large change with no consensus on any specific item. Then the material will be subject to normal BRD process, unprotected by consensus.

I'd posit that the brief 3-editor discussion represented a weak consensus for the large change, but not for any of the individual items. Therefore Riposte's "reasserting consensus" was improper in my opinion, and your edit is a BOLD subject to normal BRD process. Discuss among yourselves while I recuperate. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think reopening the discussion point is particularly useful. As it happens, I think your bold edit to that section is an improvement, and won't challenge it. The system works! Riposte97 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look that way to me. Long-standing content trimmed again after the unspecific weak/whatever alleged consensus possibly turned it into a bold edit — pinging @Nikkimaria:. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The mere fact that something is longstanding is not an argument for its retention. It's fine to object if you have some other basis, but you should say that so the editor you're pinging has something to respond to. Riposte97 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: what is your objection to adding the specifics of the second acquittal: "was acquitted on February 13" when the Senate voted 57–43 to convict, ten votes short of the required two-thirds majority? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We have a whole article on each impeachment to provide specifics; it makes sense to omit those specifics for both here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me, per my arguments below (which, if I may say so, are far more substantive than "it doesn't make sense") (those arguments are specific to second impeachment). In fact, I have posited that inclusion in a subarticle should be required for inclusion here (quite aptly analogous to the body-lead relationship within an article). We should include "specifics" here when those specifics are relevant to Trump's biography, and omit them when they are not. For elaboration on that point, read on. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The conscience of senators is relevant to their biographies, certainly, but I don't share your opinion that it is relevant to Trump's. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You're again omitting the "why" of your argument. I think you're missing the gist of my arguments, so I'll isolate an excerpt: Short of a conviction, those seven defectors represented the strongest possible statement that his actions were objectively egregious; everything else can be written off as politically-motivated bias. Apart from the acquittal itself, I don't see how anything about second impeachment is more relevant to his bio. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't miss it; in a more ideal world I might even agree with it. But is there a source that says what your excerpt does? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't looked for one. We routinely apply such editorial judgment. Even you, I'm fairly confident. And that's a pretty high standard coming from someone who still hasn't even said "why". So far, you have contributed a vote, not a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If there were a source for that, that would be something worth including. If not, my editorial judgement remains that the count isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Still no "why", so I'll assume you have none to offer and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What was I thinking?? We need sources to support included content. We don't need sources to support our rationale for including it (I think that's what you're requesting). Surely you don't need me to prove ample sourcing for "[...] when the Senate voted 57–43 to convict, ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. Seven Republican senators voted for conviction." Readers are free to infer whatever greater meaning they wish from that last sentence, or none at all. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering the strong tendency to vote in lockstep with one's party, I think it's noteworthy enough to convey that there were seven Republican defectors. They were the only seven senators who we know voted their conscience; there is no way to know for the other 93.

So I'll support the edit in principle, but I think it could use some rewording for clarity. I'm not the only one who misread this; C-SPAN got it wrong in a headline. While I'm open to other suggestions, it might be sufficiently clear if two words were added: "[...] when the Senate voted 57–43 to convict, ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

OTOH, it still wouldn't convey what I want unless the reader knows/remembers that the Senate was 50R–50D at the time. So I guess we would have to state this explicitly, eliminating any necessary deductive logic. "[...] when the Senate voted 57–43 to convict, ten votes short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. Seven Republican senators voted for conviction." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Do we need the partisan point in there? It seems to presuppose that people would read that this was a party-line vote. I’m not sure that's a necessary assumption. Riposte97 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As I indicated, defectors are the exception to the "rule" in today's (and 2021's) unfortunate U.S. political climate. Especially in something as monumental as a presidential impeachment—could there be a stronger reason to vote with your own party?—I think most readers would make the assumption. Short of a conviction, those seven defectors represented the strongest possible statement that his actions were objectively egregious; everything else can be written off as politically-motivated bias. In my opinion, that makes it worthy of inclusion in his bio. I strongly doubt there is a shortage of supporting RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I haven't lived in the US in a long time. I'll defer to your judgement here. Riposte97 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss: I don't understand this edit. Four editors involved in this discussion, two agreed to this version, you also seemed to agree in principle but weren't happy with the wording, and then decided that we needed to mention the Republican votes for conviction. How about Trump left office on January 20 and was acquitted on February 13 when the Senate vote, 57–43 to convict, fell ten votes short of the required two-thirds majority for conviction. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Per my comments, I feel strongly about including the Republican defectors. That's not mutually exclusive with the additional detail, but you had fallen silent and I was accommodating Nikkimaria's position (opposed to the detail, less opposed to the defectors). My edit doesn't preclude the additional detail if you want to continue the debate, with or without claiming a consensus for it now. I hope this is somewhat coherent. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

opposed to the detail, less opposed to the defectors—that's one editorial judgment. Here's another: As it happens, I think your bold edit to that section is an improvement. Me falling silent because I can live with or without the seven Republican defectors. everything else can be written off as politically-motivated bias—only if RS do the writing-off. Did they? The argument I recall is this: The constitutionality argument [i.e., the Senate not having jurisdiction to take up the trial of a former federal official] allowed many Republican senators to sidestep the merits of the case against Trump. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Rephrasing for clarity: Everything else is too easily dismissed by readers as politically-motivated bias. Again, we don't need sources to support our rationale for including something, and my content leaves it to readers to derive any deeper meaning from the defections.

Why not add your detail and see if it flies this time? I don't oppose it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I now agree that the article needs to convey an important point: A significant majority voted for conviction, just not significant enough per Senate (constitutional?) rules. That distinguishes second impeachment from first. I'll support:

The second impeachment came after the January 6 attack, for which the House charged Trump with incitement of insurrection on January 13, 2021. Trump left office on January 20 and was acquitted on February 13. The voting was 57 for conviction (all fifty Democratic and seven Republican senators), 43 Republicans for acquittal, leaving it ten votes short of the two-thirds required for conviction.

This eliminates the ambiguity/lack of clarity in "the Senate voted 57–43 to convict".

Seventy-two words are not excessive for something as historically significant as a presidential impeachment, and little could be more biographical. (We're currently looking at spending at least 55 words for the Zelenskyy historical first; an earlier proposal was for 64 words. I posit that a presidential impeachment warrants 30% more space than a historic Oval Office fiasco.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I won't oppose the proposed text. (All fifty Democratic and seven Republican senators), 43 Republicans for acquittal seems a bit much for summary-level but, as you said, it's only a few more words. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

per Senate (constitutional?) rules—Article 1, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Enola Gay

I think this incident is so extreme it deserves inclusion. Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that everyone knows what you're talking about, but since I do, I don't think it deserves inclusion here. It's a DOGE action (what it has to do with cutting waste is beyond me) and belongs on that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not a DOGE action. It's in response to Trump's EOs. A relevant DOD directive says in part, "In alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders and Secretary Hegseth's directives, this memorandum mandates a digital content refresh across all DoD public platforms. By March 5, 2025, all Components must remove and archive DoD news articles, photos, and videos promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), including content related to critical race theory, gender ideology, and identity-based programs." I don't see a reason to single out the example of the Enola Gay, but there can be a brief mention of the overall Trump Admin effort, with "see also" links to relevant articles, including Anti-DEI deletions by the U.S. Department of Defense and 2025 United States government online resource removals § Removed and modified content. This NYT article about targeted language is a useful resource. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

All that aside, Muboshgu sums it up quite nicely in my opinion: This has no biographical significance to Trump though. That applies to Enola Gay and all the rest in this topic area. This is a biography, not an account of Trump's presidencies; WP offers numerous other articles focused on the latter and they were written to be read by interested readers. Since the election, we (i.e., a small handful of competent editors) have been diligently trimming presidencies-related detail to keep this article at a readable length. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

My dear Comrade Mandruss, do you not recall that in circa 1919 I did a major trim of this article? You INSTANTLY reverted it, opining that you and your comrades didn't have time (sic) to check whether my edits were valid. Let's revert to that version, thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I know it's a biography. Trump's decisions about what Executive Orders to sign – what he wants to push through by pure presidential power – is absolutely relevant to his biography. EOs are seen as sufficiently relevant to his biography to be mentioned several times (e.g., in the lawsuits they attract, the "Muslim ban," the huge # of EOs he signed on 1/20/25 and the extent to which those enact Project 2025's goals). These particular EOs are quite relevant to the section on his racial and gender views. If you can make a case for the EOs not reflecting Trump's bigotry, I invite you to make it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I was about to self-rv after reconsidering your there can be a brief mention of the overall Trump Admin effort. Sometimes I speak without sufficient thought, and I'm not opposed to high-level "brief mentions" on the more important issues. Maybe you could propose specific content—or BOLDly add it and see how it flies. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, man, it will fly like a plumbum pelican!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Forbes:

References to the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan during World War II have been flagged for removal in Pentagon documents as the Department of Defense purges references related to diversity, equity and inclusion—in this case, presumably because of the word “gay.”

I think we need more objective criteria than our opinions of "extreme". I also think inclusion in an appropriate subarticle, when one exists, should be one of the requirements for inclusion here. I also think I would still oppose inclusion here. Just for starters, while I haven't read a lot of the sources, I see no indication Trump had anything to do with this, beyond his creation of DOGE. Even if he did, it would be overdetail for this 12,000-word biography (we need to keep repeating that word at every opportunity, as a reminder to ourselves and others). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That's analogous to saying that Hitler's BLP shouldn't mention the Holocaust because that was the responsibility of Himmler! Here at Godwin Ridge, we don't have a good Internet connection, but I assumed Wikipedia would be buzzing with the latest Trump outrage, but it wasn't even mentioned on the Enola Gay page! Wake up, Yankees!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That's analogous Not. Hitler had far more to do with the Holocaust than Trump had to do with flagging Enola Gay for removal. The Holocaust was not Himmler's idea, and the Enola Gay thing was very likely the idea of somebody below Trump, probably below Musk. Trump is not that detail-oriented. For all we know, no human was involved and Enola Gay was flagged by dumb software when it saw the word "Gay". Also, "flagged for removal" doesn't necessarily mean removal; it could mean flagged for review by humans—who, with the benefit of the doubt, might be credited with enough intelligence to know that "Enola Gay" has nothing to do with sexual preference (particularly humans at the Pentagon!). Sources are lacking a lot of context here, I'm sorry to say that some sources will make too much of things just to fill space and keep people employed, and this could easily be a small nothingburger comprising nothing but dry meat and bun. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is Garbage in, garbage out, Musk's "elite" programmer squad not being able to figure out that flagging every mention of certain words and deleting the offending file may have unintended consequences such as deleting images of the Enola Gay (I'm not excusing the intended consequences). Trump is ultimately responsible. For now, maybe a mention in the Second Presidency article — not sure that this idiocy belongs in the top bio. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Flagging for human review is actually the smart way to do it, knowing that humans are smarter than software, especially software that has to be cobbled together in a hurry to stay on Trump's good side and remain employed (no time to develop AI, and no need for AI for this one-time task). I think it's very likely that's what happened here; as a retired software developer, that's exactly how I would do it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The smart way requires common sense which appears to be in short supply at Doge, having left out the review step in flag -> review -> delete or retain: Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot told the AP the department is "pleased by the rapid compliance across the Department with the directive removing DEI content," clarifying if "content is removed that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct components accordingly." (Forbes) — the "shoot first, ask questions later, then hide the body" approach. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

We had to invoke Godwin's law that fast? If anything, I think removing the Navajo code talkers is worse than removing an airplane. Or the DOD page on Jackie Robinson. This has no biographical significance to Trump though. It's relevant to DOGE and the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems no worse than a lot of other things, all of which can be covered with one line about the DoD. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Same reaction as to Bible, then, Mr Slater...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response by Comrade Mandruss and the other responses. Some background here. Missing Point is one of the smallest suburbs recorded by the ABS. We live in a houseboat moored off the mudbank, and, mate, the NBN is slow! My dear old mum Effie McGonical AM looked up from her Mac Book last morning as was as crowed the news of Enola Gay. I assumed it was breaking news, and confidently predicted that Wikipedia would be a buzz with the controversy by sun up. But nary a peep from you seppos!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hence the hazard of rushing to include breaking news. Your thread could have waited a couple of weeks to allow the situation to develop and mature. We've been saying it for many years: folks need to stop reading today's news and running to this article to add it or propose adding it. Or any article, for that matter. WP:SLOWTHEFUCKDOWN. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

SORRY, MAATE!Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Refer to our previous clash about the King James Bible. I think it was last year. But time moves vanishingly slow at Period Stop.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what relevance a clash from a year ago has anything to do with this (as this has sod all to do with any religious book) nor am I going to look for it. As such I shall not respond anymore about this derail other than to say. This is an irrelevant distraction, and in no way explains why THIS addition is needed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry STEVO! Jack Upland (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This would be more fitting on the Enola gay page itself. Question169 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Attempted and rejected. See that TP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the consensus is for inclusion somewhere.Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

I want to continue making the case that the article should have a section on Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, given that previous discussions on the matter have been archived without a strong consensus. Trump's relationship and history with Epstein are clearly notable and of public interest. Furthermore:

• It is a matter of continuing relevance: Trump's current administration has repeatedly brought up the Epstein case and suggested declassifying files relating to it. The history of the case is thus still relevant to the administration's current and future policies in this regard.
• A section on the matter would not be giving it undue weight: In the previous discussion, it was argued that a section on Trump's ties with Epstein would risk giving undue weight to the matter. This seems clearly untrue given the length of Trump's article. A section on his connection with Epstein would not give the impression that it is the most important thing to know about the person who is the subject of the article.
• Appearance of political bias: While Other articles are not this one, a comparison with other articles seems pertinent in this case. The fact that articles on liberal-leaning figures Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have sections on their relationship with Epstein, and the conservative-leaning Trump doesn't, despite his dealings with Epstein being no less substantive or well-documented, gives the impression of a political bias. By way of omission, the lack of an Epstein section risks undermining the article's, and Wikipedia's, credibility.

TKSnaevarr (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Still opposed to this. Guilt by association is not a thing, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump was directly involved in any criminal activities. I would support it being removed from other articles too, but the issue is those articles are nowhere near as long as this one (generally speaking) so maybe it's okay there. It's not about the "most important thing", it's about whether, given every other important thing, this is the same level of importance. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that the other articles are shorter mean that those sections are giving even more undue weight to the matter? They make up a comparatively larger portion of those articles.

And I disagree with the idea that this is creating "guilt by association". The facts of the matter are of interest unto themselves, regardless of what conclusions people could draw from it about any potential guilt. TKSnaevarr (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Due weight is in relation to two things - the prominence in reliable sources and the article's depth of coverage as a whole. The facts are of interest because of guilt by association. There is no encyclopedic value in "X was friends with Y" unless there is some encyclopedic interest in that friendship. The only interest that could be had in this friendship is that Y has committed crimes. As such, the only encyclopedic value is "X was friends with this criminal". That is not appropriate, period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that it is or encyclopedic interest because Trump's own administration has made a large show and dance around the case, mainly in efforts to discredit Trump's political opponents. As well as the fact that the Epstein scandal materially affected Trump's first administration by prompting the resignation of Alex Acosta.

But if it truly not appropriate for an encyclopedia, I will request that the corresponding sections be removed from the articles on Clinton and Gates on the same logic. Shining a light on this unflattering association in their articles but not Trump's is a double standard, plain and simple. TKSnaevarr (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Berch, I have my own mixed feelings about including the suggested comment, which is why I'm not going to lodge an opinion one way or the other, but I do think that there is something a little problematic under policy with your argument. As editors, we don't get to decide whether a given fixation with a given fact (or cluster of facts) is made in the sources (or society at large) for good reason. Deciding that this content is "not encyclopedic" because it happens to be based (in your or another editor's estimation) on guilt by association (or any other judgement or value assessment) does not jibe well with the relevant policies.

What matters is whether there is enough WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS to justify inclusion here, considering the breadth of topics this article has to cover. That's where my own hesitance to include comes from. There's only so much that can be said about what is known of Trump's association with Epstein, and so coverage has, for better or worse, been minimal, at least relative to other topics that must need be covered here. Undoubtedly that is in part because of the lightning rod nature of this subject in so many other respects, but that's the reality in any event. But were there to be further substantial coverage, we would be obliged to include a summary, even if we, in our personal capacities, thought it represented sensationalistic obsession (from guilt by association, or any other cause). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Re your third bullet, the article already gives the impression of a political bias. Always has, always will—usually an anti-Trump bias. Avoiding such public perceptions—among readers who all have their own biases—is not how we write content, and AFAIK it has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Otherwise no comment. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps my phrasing was poor. It doesn't create the "appearance" of bias, it is bias via a clear double standard. TKSnaevarr (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect editors at all three articles will cite WP:OSE (as you did). The issue might have to go up to community level, perhaps WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Are discussions of this nature usually handled there? This isn't exactly a "policy" debate. TKSnaevarr (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe WP:VPR, then? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The allegations against him regarding his known sexual assaults against adults and children as well as his relationship with Epstein are constantly removed from both the article and the talk page for obvious reasons..this is why people have issues with Wikipedia…the narratives are constantly directed and distorted by people who have an agenda…there is a special place in prison and hell for peodophiles…and the people who protect them 209.253.210.19 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a discussion on the matter there. TKSnaevarr (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

A mentioning of trump meetups with Epstein would not hurt but we can't imply anything out of scope. Question169 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump derangement syndrome

It should be included that psychiatrists are trying to add Trump derangement syndrome as a mental illness to the DS-5 by the American Psychiatric Association. Missmistay (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Only a quack would be trying to add TDS to the DSM-5. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

USA, USA Moxy🍁 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

GOP lawmaker behind ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ bill accused of soliciting teen ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

A mental illness affecting Trump supporters: Contrary to popular assumption, Trump derangement, rather than presenting as comorbid with left-leaning politics, in our research presents as statistically exclusive to those members of the American electorate who cast votes for Donald John Trump. This was initially surprising to our team ... I didn't need Dr. Snikt's meta study to tell me that, I've been saying it all along, my research consisting of watching Jordan Klepper fingering the pulse. I'd add the "face with tears of joy" emoji but after that top secret Signal chat introducing us to the flexed biceps emoji I think I'll have to stop using them. State charges — not a candidate for a Trump pardon. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Those allegations are entirely irrelevant to the substance of this discussion; attacking a person's character rather than the substance or lack thereof of their argument is ad hominum. What is more relevant is Justin Eichorn's qualifications or lack thereof, and the evidence or lack thereof supporting this. 2603:6011:9440:D700:3D1D:3584:98E:1C8 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyway this isn't a forum to discuss the validity or lack thereof of this syndrome. 2603:6011:9440:D700:3D1D:3584:98E:1C8 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You should learn to bring reliable sources to proposals for inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Youre asking me to bring reliable sources when there is not one reliable source credited on this entire page. I would do the work to site credible sources if you would open the page up to allow others to edit and correct the information. Why is this page locked? And more importantly why is this page only allowed to be edited by people who have an obvious bias towards this person? I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to allow others to contribute facts. This entire page is nothing but a hit piece. And lastly why is my topics on this page keep being closed before I can respond? Missmistay (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The page is protected so that only admins and extended confirmed users (the account must have existed at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits) may edit it. The article is protected because it is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. For information on identifying reliable sources, see the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline; a list of reliable sources is provided at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

And lastly why is my topics on this page keep being closed before I can respond? You will find an answer in the closure statements. That's why we take the time to write them. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless Trump derangement syndrome is genuinely accepted by reliable sources this seems like an WP:UNDUE issue. Groot42 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable enough for an inclusion. We will have to wait to see if anything happens. Question169 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Please link a source which proves your claim. NesserWiki (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Wrestling

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, this is my 24 hour notice. You've cut this para back to one tiny sentence and then plopped it alone in a section that is proposed for deletion. I am busy until this weekend, maybe Friday, and as you know there is all kinds of discussion in the archive. If name-calling isn't an insight into Trump the man, then I don't know what is. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand — name-calling is Trump's "style of politics"? Your material in the "Media career" section:

Trump acquired his style of politics from professional wrestling—with its staged fights and name-calling. Author Naomi Klein writes he is a member of the WWE Hall of Fame for his performances "as himself (the ultrarich boss) in World Wrestling Entertainment".

This was the last discussion of Trump's WWE connection, AFAIK, following the removal of these two sentences on Trump's WWE appearances:

Trump had a sporadic relationship with the professional wrestling promotion WWE since the late 1980s. He appeared at WrestleMania 23 in 2007 and was inducted into the celebrity wing of the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.

I didn't support its removal but didn't challenge it because nobody else objected to it. Name-calling/style of politics IMO would belong in the "Rhetoric" section. Quoting your cited source:

As Matt Taibbi pointed out in Rolling Stone, Trump’s entire campaign had a distinctly W.W.E. quality. He carefully nurtured feuds with other candidates, and handed out insulting nicknames (Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted). He played ringmaster at his own rallies, complete with over-the-top insult-chants (“Killary,” “Lock her up!”), and directed the crowd’s rage at the designated villains: journalists and demonstrators. Outsiders would emerge from these events shaken, not sure what had just happened.

If we want to mention the induction into the WWE Hall of Fame, we'd need another source than Ezra Klein's opinion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Name-calling is Trump's "style of politics". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So it belongs in the Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric section? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It belongs somewhere... RS have covered the Trump/WWE connection extensively, even this week. We need more than we have, for sure. The article has him in the category for the WWE Hall of Fame, but the article body makes no mention of this, which is a categorization no-no. We need to add his HoF induction at a minimum, and probably reinsert what you cut too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Can we please not move this until the RfC closes on removal of the entire §Political practice and rhetoric? Right now what's left is dangling dangerously close to drive-by deletion. Please reverse your edits. This review article is a fine source and gives dozens more. We also have a book I don't intend to read. I just bought Naomi Klein to source this para and then you deleted most of it. (BTW, Gillian Tett, a guest and not Ezra Klein, was the source just for the specific term "name-calling". I'll buy the other book only if you insist. Maybe you can cobble a citation together out of Google Books.) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Media career of Donald Trump has a section on wrestling, so I put this in our §Media career. It also makes sense for Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric once that RfC settles down. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ezra Klein's Tett interview was published in the NY Time's opinion section. I agree with Tett's opinion that many of the cultural patterns, even down to the name-calling and the manufactured fake fighting have been taken into the way he conducts politics but we need another source. Naomi Klein's text (As Matt Taibbi pointed out in Rolling Stone, Trump’s entire campaign had a distinctly W.W.E. quality. He carefully nurtured feuds with other candidates, and handed out insulting nicknames (Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted). He played ringmaster at his own rallies, complete with over-the-top insult-chants (“Killary,” “Lock her up!”), and directed the crowd’s rage at the designated villains: journalists and demonstrators. Outsiders would emerge from these events shaken, not sure what had just happened. What had happened was a cross between a pro-wrestling match and a white-supremacist rally.) supports staged fights and name-calling, IMO, but the book was published in 2017. A few more recent sources: Atlantic, Australian Broadcasting Company, Telegraph. I don't see any problem with putting/keeping this in the "Political practice and rhetoric" section now. The RfC is unspecific. If there is a consensus for the mass deletions, what's to prevent any editor from adding material to the section? We could also keep it in the "Media career" section for now and move it later. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you have against a book from 2017? I used Klein's book because others cite her, like Moon in 2022. I'll note Wayne Barrett is dead and first wrote his book in 1992, and it's the best early Trump biography I have seen. He knows New York City like nobody else. I don't have access to The Atlantic and Telegraph. The Australian Broadcasting source is lifted from the Moon article which is free to read. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

As an editor who is quite familiar with professional wrestling, I thought I should weigh in. Yes, Trump's political style clearly incorporates elements learned from his time in WWE, so this has clearly affected his life. There are definitely sources out there which can back it up. In 2007, Trump had a storyline feud with WWE Chairman Vince McMahon and thus Trump became a featured attraction at WrestleMania 23. This is quite a monumental achievement in the industry of professional wrestling, which in 2007 saw WWE being close to a monopoly for in terms of global professional wrestling outreach. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump acquired some of his political style from professional wrestling—with its staged fights and name-calling. Trump was inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013, after being a featured attraction for WWE's WrestleMania 23 event in 2007, participating in a scripted feud with WWE Chairman Vince McMahon.

• Something like the above would be sufficient. It's just two sentences, establishing the impact on Trump and the achievements in the professional wrestling industry by Trump. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to cut down the WWE promotion? It is WP:UNDUE for 50 percent of the paragraph to go on and on about WWE. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: - as far as I know, Trump's appearances in professional wrestling were restricted to the company, WWE. There's no way to explain it properly without mentioning WWE. The focus is on what Trump did in WWE. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've cut it back. We're not here to give column inches to WWE. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Achievements? It's reality-TV entertainment, i.e., prearranged moves and outcomes, as anyone who's ever watched an elbow drop to the sternum or a piledriver is probably aware of. While you can visit the rock & roll, baseball, and football halls of fame in Cleveland/OH, Cooperstown/NY, and Canton/OH, respectively, the WWE hall of fame is just another reality-TV event. In the words of Owen Hart’s widow Martha Hart: "Their Hall of Fame? They don’t even have a Hallway of Fame. It doesn’t exist. There’s nothing. It’s a fake entity. There’s nothing real or tangible. It’s just an event they have to make money." I still think the original short mention in the "Media career" section is neutral and to-the-point, may shortened to: Trump had a sporadic relationship with the professional wrestling promotion WWE since the late 1980s. He was featured in a few events and was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013. Trump's politics echoing professional wrestling's kayfabe ("agreement between wrestlers and the promoter and the referees and most of the audience to act as if what is being performed is for real") belongs in the "Political practice and rhetoric" section (see my separate response above). Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: - if you want to cut the WWE Hall of Fame, I'm actually fine, for the reasons you mentioned. But the featured in a few events is so vague that it does not properly educate. We could simply have Trump had a sporadic relationship with the professional wrestling promotion WWE since the late 1980s. He was featured in a few events, including WrestleMania 23 in 2007 for a storyline with WWE Chairman Vince McMahon. If I were to draw an analogy, this would be akin to Trump appearing in a prominent film (e.g. Titanic) with a prominent director (e.g. James Cameron) or working directly with a top actor (e.g. Robert De Niro) in the film. It's scripted, but still an achievement. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this would be very good to include in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump page. I would add it there before adding it here. BootsED (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree but to be honest, that article needs work from somebody who knows the art of rhetoric. Until now this subject is tackled in Media career of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I quite agree Susan.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Academic writing about Trump, WWE and WrestleMania: one of the largest and most popular wrestling events in the world ... WrestleMania has become a pop culture phenomenon ... WrestleMania has been singled out as one of the modes through which to understand Trump’s diplomacy (Day and Wedderburn 2022) or modus operandi (Moon 2022; Mendes 2016). Not only did Trump develop his own persona in the context of WrestleMania (Hall, Goldstein, and Ingram 2016), but, as David Moon (2022) specifically addresses, Trump used WWE tricks in his presidential campaign, especially the performativity and stage nature of some of the abuse and the temporality of the event ... WrestleMania 23, which took place on April 1, 2007. In a scripted storyline, he participated in a “Battle of the Billionaires” match alongside WWE chairman Vince McMahon. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

More academic writing: He has been featured on programs for World Wrestling Entertainment on a somewhat periodic basis since the late 1980s with his most famous performance at 2007’s Wrestlemania 23 where he bet shaving his head upon the outcome of a match starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Even more academic writing: the rise to prominence of Donald Trump, whose ties to the WWE began in the 1980s, reaching an apotheosis of sorts in the squared circle at WrestleMania 23 in 2007 starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Oooohh... pretty! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Foreign relations

The shift in NATO and Europe relations is notable enough, the article should elaborate on these, not sure about the reverts [27] [28] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Re the first revert you linked, your add looked (to me) like an expansion of the Zelenskyy circus show, which consensus had limited to the minimum necessary to convey the historical first. If placed separately, I probably would've left it to be challenged for a different reason. If you want to try again, no objection from me, but it's likely to be challenged as overdetail for this Trump biography. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

While I don't specifically object the current wording of the meeting part, the BBC article How Trump blew up the world order - and left Europe scrabbling paints a bigger picture of "All of this is great news for Putin", "the fragmentation of the West has begun", with the meeting being a part of it, and confirming it.

With Vindman The Perils of “Russia First” | Foreign Affairs further confirming that No American president has ever so publicly taken Russia’s side against one of Washington’s European partners. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability of trump tweets

Are trumps tweets notable enough to be included? Or are they only revelvant if secondary sources talks about them? Question169 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

At minimum, they need some undefined amount of secondary reliable source coverage, still no guarantee. A tweet might be discussed in twenty sources and still be deemed unsuitable for this article; the amount of RS support is not the only factor to be considered. No different from words that escape his mouth. Do we even know that all of "trumps tweets" come from Trump? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there's a full Wiki article dedicated to one or his tweets. So it does seem as if the concensus it to treat Trump's tweets/Truth Social posts as notable enough to be included in articles. NesserWiki (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting article that I didn't know about, thanks for the information. Question169 (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Only those tweets which are reported on by a reliable source are considered notable. In theory, if Trump were to make a tweet and everyone from reporters to authors to sociological researchers ignored it, then it would not be notable. 1101 (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Topics being removed

Why are my topics being removed? Missmistay (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Read one of the closure statements, follow both of its links and read what's there in both cases, and let us know if something remains unclear. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that Trump should not be included in "New York (state) Democrats" category?

I wanted to make sure that him not being included in that category was intentional, and isn't an oversight. NesserWiki (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Was he ever a Democrat? Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, from 2001 to 2009, he was. NesserWiki (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Scroll down and you'll see it listed on his page. NesserWiki (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

If he was a Democrat, even for a small amount of time, he is worthy of inclusion. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is sourced in the article: "Trump registered as a Republican in 1987; a member of the Independence Party, the New York state affiliate of the Reform Party, in 1999; a Democrat in 2001; a Republican in 2009; unaffiliated in 2011; and a Republican in 2012." ErnestKrause (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That needs attribution as it is a claim made by Bush. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing has been cleaned up. The statement does not need attribution now. —Alalch E. 16:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it didn't need attribution. PolitiFact investigated Jeb Bush's claim and rated it as false. They published their research of Trump's voter registrations over the years from his first registration in 1989 (Republican) until 2015, the year of the article's publication. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What do these categories mean, politicians active in a party, people actively and publicly supporting a party, politicians formerly active in a party, people who have ever actively and publicly supported a party? In New York (state), political party enrollment is optional but necessary if a voter wants to vote in a party's primary. Trump didn't vote in Democratic Party primaries during the time period he was registered as a Democrat, per the PolitiFact source that was recently deemed unnecessary. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

RS have made a significant deal about whether or not Trump is a traditional Republican. David Brooks (commentator) at TNYT and Fareed Zakaria, for example, seem to make a big deal about his not being a Reagan republican. If Trump has crossed party lines in his career, then it seems notable. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I quite agree, Herr Krause!Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You can call me Ernest, no need for Germanic titles. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a compelling argument to discuss in article body. I think the category can probably be left off as it is not currently accurate that Trump is a Democrat or even principally residing in New York when not at Washington. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Who is the brains?

President Trump is smart but I can't believe that he alone is responsible for the rapid-fire array of actions. Why doesn't this article answer the question, who is the brains behind this administration? Say, Stephen Miller? I've found lists of his closest allies in Politico, PBS, Forbes, Duke University. I am stumped and think maybe fixation on Donald Trump (and Elon Musk) alone to explain his second presidency is a mistake. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What do RS say about it, we do not speculate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Could be, but this article is not about Miller or the administration. Beware of tangents. Each added clarification raises new questions that require more clarification. As I see it, the problem is too much information about the presidency, not too little. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The "brains" of the administration is Project 2025. But how relevant is this to Trump's biography, as opposed to presidency of Donald Trump? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Just trying to understand the conceptual framework of more actions than I feel Trump is capable of conceiving in a couple months. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

During the campaign, Trump denied having anything to do with Project 2025 and its stated goals, but he sure seems to be following its "policy blueprint". At some point this should probably be mentioned at summary-level. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Alison Durkee is a formidable reporter. Heritage Foundation could be mentioned, and their mysterious "playbook for Trump’s first 180 days in office"..."intentionally keeping the playbook a secret"..."It’s still unknown what that playbook says and whether Trump is now implementing it in office." -SusanLesch (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, evidently I am way behind. US Representatives tried to have the 180-Day Transition Playbook written by Russell Vought released six months ago. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

"President Trump is smart". BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! The guy who can't understand how tariffs work? The guy who doesn't understand the difference between transgender and transgenic? But I definitely agree that someone else is feeding him ideas/writing orders for him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect the OP was exercising due caution regarding WP:BLP while asking "who is the brains of this operation" and, as such, would suggest the best course of action would be to ignore the "Trump is smart" statement rather than taking a position one way or the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

To test your claim about BLP on article talk pages, let's see if this gets removed or oversighted: Donald Trump is an idiot. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. 2600:1004:B195:EC51:1C0B:1614:EADA:B17 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

smart, definition 2b, "informal : rude or impolite in a bold and disrespectful way". Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a wp:forum or wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Expanding on health section

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

---

Prior discussion discussed the possibility of expanding the health section of the page to briefly touch on Trump's mental health, which resulted in a split and no consensus. Based on the page Age and health concerns about Donald Trump and some sources brought up in prior discussions, I would like to propose one possible example of how this could look on the page.

Trump has been described by researchers as having an "off-the-charts" personality and campaigning style when compared to other world leaders. An academic consensus across multiple studies has characterized him as having "very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism". Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family. Such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.

I believe this would serve as an appropriate top-level summary of the relevant child article about Trump for this page, as large parts of it are about his mental health which have no mention on this page at all. BootsED (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Watch that over-repetition of surname. Two of those three Trumps are unnecessary and unnatural. For readers, there is no "reset" between sentences like you have between paragraphs. Sentences do not stand alone but are part of a continuous flow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Good catch! I fixed it. BootsED (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Dementia fails verification: The cited TNR article does not contain a psychiatrist's speculation that Trummp may have dementia. The cited WaPo article (archive.org) doesn't cover dementia. A 2024 WaPo article cited in Age and health concerns about Donald Trump has: "Some experts previously told The Post that Trump could face an elevated genetic risk of dementia" which is not speculation that he has dementia, it is speculation that he is more likely to get dementia. The NYT article has: "Experts said it was hard to judge whether the changes in Mr. Trump’s speaking style could indicate typical effects of age or some more significant condition", and is generally neither here nor there, and has no explicit reference to dementia. There's a mention of "moments of forgetfulness", but the word "dementia" does not appear.

I need to see: "I (a psychiatrist) believe/think/suspect, that Trump has dementia". We don't have that statement in the four sources (three in the proposed addition here and the 2024 WaPo piece in the daughter article). From multiple psychiatrists. We need that statement to exist in the sources to be able to say: "Some psychiatrists ... have speculated that he may have ... dementia ...".—Alalch E. 23:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. That was posted over from the age and health concerns page. I think this source would possibly satisfy your concerns, and although dementia is mentioned it more explicitly talks about cognitive decline in general, stating: "Leading mental health experts, including a former White House doctor, have expressed alarm over Donald Trump's mental faculties, suggesting he's showing signs of "cognitive decline."

A revised sentence would read:

Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging.

BootsED (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have now read that Independent article, and agree with you entirely. That revised sentence is good. Thank you. —Alalch E. 00:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Such an edit would need to be explicit about saying that this is a speculative diagnosis and not based on any documented medical report from Trump's doctors. Its a significant difference between speculative diagnoses and documented diagnoses. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep! The word "speculated" is in there. BootsED (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be closed per Current Consensus 39? PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I haven't been involved in the history of this issue.

WP:CCC would normally apply, particularly after the passage of almost four years, but item 39 includes: Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This appears to be based in the first paragraph of the closure of the second discussion. That closure was performed by admin Valereee, so perhaps she could be persuaded to weigh in—or to close this thread herself if she feels it shouldn't have been opened.

At a minimum, I think something this sensitive and controversial would need another RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is a continuation of the discussion above, which was not closed. Others noted that Consensus 39 was not applicable in this instance, as there is no claim that Trump suffers from any mental diagnosis. We are merely reporting on extensive media and research discussion about it. An entire separate page even exists on this topic. Why can it be mentioned there but not here? This is no different than Joe Biden's health and age concerns being noted in his own page. BootsED (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The difference would be that most ordinary people can see and agree that Biden unfortunately has lewy body dementia at this point, which is not the case here. All the discussion about Trump's health doesn't seem that notable at THIS point. Of course that could change over the next few years. --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So when the media reports on Biden's mental health, it is okay to include on his page, but if it reports on Trump's mental health, it cannot be added? This seems like a double standard. BootsED (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's see what Valereee has to say, if anything. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

We are merely reporting on extensive media and research discussion about it. Which is what lead to that item. It all feeds into the Goldwater Rule. PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Rule 39 explicitly states that "This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office". I would say this current addition satisfies that requirement. BootsED (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you've now asserted that point at least twice. Now let's see what Valereee has to say about it, if anything. She's obviously well familiar with the history of the issue; and she's a successful, long-time admin; so we can assume she knows more than any of us do and can speak with some authority on the process question. Being competent, she will give fair consideration to your argument(s).

Again, I'm fairly certain this needs RfC if it moves forward. In that case, no consensus will be established in this thread. We could use it for pre-RfC workshopping, deciding what to propose in the RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

NO, as it seems to me to have had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

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

Closure of health section discussion

Valeree, I would kindly request that your closure of the above discussion "Expanding on health section" be reverted. Consensus Item #39 explicitly states that "this does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness" and that "this does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office". The above proposal at no point claimed that Trump suffered from any mental illness. It was explicitly about the extensive media coverage and academic discussion of it and concerns about his fitness for office. Your closure thus violated Consensus Item #39, which states that there shall not be any prohibition regarding "bringing up for discussion" this topic.

Should this closure stand, you will have clarified that Consensus Item #39 applies to not only that we cannot state that Trump suffers from an mental illness without an MEDRS-level source (which is reasonable and already prohibited per WP:BLP), but also that there can also be no discussion about whether to even include any information about his mental fitness or temperament for office unless such information comes from an MEDRS-level source. For example, this would mean that Joe Biden's page could not include any mention about his age concerns of cognitive decline and mental fitness, as such discussion does not come from an MEDRS-level source. As no MEDRS-level source will ever be released for either Trump or Biden, this would serve as a de facto ban on any mention of media coverage and debate about mental health and fitness for office only on this page, even though an entirely separate page extensively covers this topic without any MEDRS-level sources. BootsED (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You should read the two RFCs that came up with the prohibition. Also consensus here only applies to here and not other articles like Boden's article. Though I personally would support it there as well. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Will defer early manual archival of the other thread pending a resolution, pinning it if that becomes necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

BootsED, your proposed addition included Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family., sourced to the New Republic, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. None of those are MEDRS. You could propose the rest of that passage, Trump has been described by researchers as having an "off-the-charts" personality and campaigning style when compared to other world leaders. An academic consensus across multiple studies has characterized him as having "very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism". Such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination., although I'd highly recommend more clarity on the type of researchers and academic studies, which all seem to be non-medical researchers/non-medical studies being reported in political journals, not medical journals. Valereee (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me this is morphing into a continuation of the other thread. You're discussing content in a thread about process. If you want to discuss content, close this thread and re-open the other one. IMO. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm discussing consensus item #39, which states Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. The distinction I'm making is that one of the sentences proposed in that RfC discusses speculated specific medical diagnoses without MEDRS or formal diagnosis, so is not okay even to discuss under item 39, and the other three discuss the speculation in the media, which is okay to discuss inclusion of. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

But you're suggesting improvements, I think, which gets us into content territory. AFAICT, what you're doing here is no different from participating in the other thread, suggesting changes to the proposed text per item 39. And if we ultimately reach some list-worthy consensus, the list item will have to link to both threads to fully document the consensus. Ah well, enough from our local process/organization wonk. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edited after reply per WP:REDACT. Stricken comment no longer applies after making this a subsection of "the other thread". 02:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting removing from their proposal the part of the discussion that isn't allowed and, if they choose, start a new discussion. I have zero opinion on the language editors here agree on, or whether to include or not. I just am saying they can discuss A, but not B. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I will agree with Mandruss on this one, this topic has become about the content. If you wanted to say that the one sentence wasn't allowed, you didn't need to close the entire discussion if the majority of it was fine. Also, if you read through the discussion, you would've seen that the sentence you took issue with in particular was changed and has different sources now used after another editor brought up a similar point. BootsED (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources currently used are New Republic, Washington Post, and New York Times, which are not MEDRS. If you would like to strike that entire sentence, go ahead and reopen, but if the discussion goes anywhere near diagnosis of mental illness again, I'd have to reclose and once again direct you to start fresh with something that can be fully discussed. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, the sentence was changed and that is not the current sentence under discussion, and different sources are used. There is no claim that Trump has a certain diagnosis.

Would changing the sentence to "

While some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging, such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.

" By merging the sentence about the Goldwater rule into the sentence about the intense media coverage, we would both acknowledge and cover the widespread discussion about Trump's mental health by qualified psychologists while also noting the criticism of such speculation in a more direct manner.

The proposed discussion about the Goldwater rule is currently in a separate sentence right afterwards instead of the same one, which coupled with the lack of the word "some" may lead readers to believe the speculation is more concrete than in reality." I also believe this is notable as part of the public image of Trump due to a plethora of RS that discuss this. It's a very notable part of Trump's biography. Otherwise I'll abide and remove the sentence itself. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

BootsEd, you say Again, the sentence was changed and that is not the current sentence under discussion, and different sources are used. There is no claim that Trump has a certain diagnosis. The existing proposal, which you wrote, says "Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family." And it is sourced to New Republic, WaPo, NYT. It is still sitting right there in the proposal. If you've changed it, you need to strike out from the proposal what has been removed and insert whatever you think you've changed it to. And if you're talking about Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging, that is still discussing specific mental health diagnoses, sourced to The Independent and WaPo, which are not MEDRS. And IMO, no, the revision you're suggesting here also isn't following consensus, because, and I feel like a broken record here, you are still talking about specific mental health diagnoses without MEDRS and without an announced diagnosis.

I feel like you are trying to game consensus, here. That is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Categories / sections

Wouldn't it make sense to have a 'legal issues' section? I think in general, this article is not super easy to navigate and could use some restructuring. MaximumLux (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would. We still have one about his legal issues before his first presidential term, Donald Trump#Legal affairs and bankruptcies. We also used to have a section on the civil and criminal cases following his first term version until January 2025, then trimmed to this version, and trimmed again and shorn of the subsection headings to its current iteration, four nameless paragraphs in the Donald Trump#Between terms (2021–2025) section. I just added a subsection heading. We'll see whether it gets reverted. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

archiving

I archived several discussions that hadn't had comment in over seven days, and they were restored citing #13...which I'd been interpreting as 'manual archiving can occur before seven days in the following cases', and I thought those sections had somehow been overlooked by the bot. So we're saying nothing can be archived at all unless it is formally closed or archived by the bot, even if the bot seems to have missed it? That seems like a recipe for talk pages that are as long as this one is. :) Honestly this page is so long my browser could barely open the code to see how archiving was set up lol...Valereee (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the bot missed those, and have re-archived them. For future reference, a dummy edit would help; we don't have any mind readers around here to my knowledge.

I don't recall seeing the bot miss like that, certainly not on four threads at a time. We'll have to keep a closer eye on that and try to figure out why. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the bot is having as hard a time opening the page as my browser did! Yes, I wish the archiving button would allow an edit summary. Valereee (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like time for a computer upgrade. I have no such problem and my laptop is about three years old. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

2023 MacBook Pro running Sonoma 14.6.1. It's not the page itself, it's the code w/preview enabled. Load, pause, load, pause, finally loads completely. I don't see this often, but with long pages that also have lots of code, it occasionally happens. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

hm...does look like I need to update, doing...maybe that'll help! Valereee (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

565K is a lot of code, no disputing that. The page had 29 level-2 sections before these archivals, and it's somewhat recently had double that. I don't know what could be done except to talk less.

Maybe the bot is having as hard a time opening the page as my browser did! I don't think the bot has preview enabled. :) That's more likely why you see the problem and I don't; I get by just fine without preview (fyi for others, that's not to be confused with the "Show preview" button). You could consider weaning yourself unless you can live with the ongoing problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't need it, I think I just turned it on while experimenting with buttons, but I don't know how to turn it off! :D What am I looking for? Valereee (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Lol. Brb. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's Preferences->Appearance->Enable page previews (get quick previews of a topic while reading a page). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, just hell. It's greyed out. I must have enabled something else somewhere... Valereee (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Or one of the three "Preview" options at Preferences->Editing. Failing that, off to WP:HD with you! ;) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I found it there! I can now toggle back and forth again. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your time, though. :) Valereee (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Always happy to be of help, especially to users who have the power to block me. lol. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Which actually reminds me of something earlier: long-time admin; so we can assume she knows more than any of us do and can speak with some authority on the process question. Just for the record, no one should assume an admin, even a long-time one, necessarily has greater knowledge or has greater authority. Admins are just trusted. Any admin should be willing to admit when they don't know something, and if they aren't, they shouldn't be admins. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Very humble of you, but I think your closure will stick better than an uninvolved non-admin closure. And it wasn't just your admin status, but also your knowledge of the issue's history. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Amended Nickname

I would like to recommend editing this Wikipedia page to update the monikers "Tariff Sheriff" and "DealMaker in Chief" as nicknames for President Trump. The 1st was initially mentioned on a podcast https://open.spotify.com/show/6XQoq0t6PqQud0AkgTtJbg The second moniker can be found in his own Executive Writing https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adjusts-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-to-minimize-disruption-to-the-automotive-industry/

Thank you 71.67.83.218 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we need reliable sources for these. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

no, neither of these are encyclopedia or noteworthy. this is not twitter. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Trumpy has many nicknames more notable than these two, and we do not have those either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#Donald Trump. Not here; this is a serious article and we avoid trivia. No guarantee at that other article. I assume its editors require something resembling WP:DUE, and it does use citations, but I don't edit there and don't care. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Not on List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#Donald Trump, either, we need reliable sources for that article, as well. Tariff Sheriff is actually Trump's nickname for President William McKinley. Haven't found any reliable secondary source calling Trump dealmaker-in-chief, but may I present doofus-in-chief? From the Entertainment Section but, hey, the world needed this: The Friday ambush of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was the most shameful event in Oval Office history. And I’m including Richard Nixon and anything Bill Clinton may have done with his pants yanked down. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

we need reliable sources for that article, as well. My point was that this is not the place to discuss changes to that list article. If this gets taken there, you can go there and oppose it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hearing on nationwide injunctions

With courts temporarily blocking many of President Donald Trump’s actions, his allies are seeking change in nationwide injunctions and the judicial system.

— Justin Jouvenal, Theodoric Meyer, Marianna Sotomayor, and Clara Ence Morse, "GOP lawmakers take aim at anti-Trump rulings, nationwide injunctions", The Washington Post (March 31, 2025)

Where is the appropriate place in the article for this information? Is there a page better suited to this specific subject? 1101 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Obviously under the section about his second term, but do you have reliable sources about specific injunctions or court actions affect the Trump administration? MilaKuliž (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Trump

Just advertising this RfC: Talk:Trump#Requested move 25 March 2025

Should the page "Trump" be turned into a disambiguation page redirecting to Donald Trump's page? Note that the word "Trump" has many other meanings than the President. GN22 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GN22, that's not really a neutral statement. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GN22: Took me a while to figure out what's going on there. Currently typing "Trump" into the search field targets the disambiguation page Trump. If the page is moved to Trump (disambiguation) (same page, different name), typing "Trump" into the search field results in taking the searcher to Donald Trump, yes/no? If they all end up here (Junior and Fred also have thousands of viewers every day), does that have some kind of effect on this page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I could spend fifteen minutes composing the complete reply, but this is a discussion notice, not a discussion. The discussion notice is the only reason to say anything at all about this on this page. Better asked at Talk:Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Obama comments ("Faux-Bama")

"Trump hired a "Faux-Bama" to participate in a video in which Trump "ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him."

ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/michael-cohen-book-trump-white-house/index.html Should be mentioned in Donald Trump's article Uchinowa28973 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a reliable source. Since this is an article about a living person it is especially important that any claims made are verifiable by one or more reliable sources. MilaKuliž (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can Trump's Truth Social posts be used as reliable sources?

Since these posts are authored by the subject of this article, do they meet the "reliable source" criteria? Uchinowa28973 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

They could be accepted for noncontroversial statements about him, if there's no better source, but there's generally a better source. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say they can be used as sources for the contents of the posts. We cannot assume Trump is speaking truthfully even about himself. As such a post on Truth Social from Trump can be evidence that Trump said a thing but that's it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be the noncontroversial part. :D Valereee (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

We cannot assume Trump is speaking truthfully even about himself. Ya think? lol. Sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus building: Trump's foreign policy on Croatia

After his inauguration Trump fired Nathalie Rayes the incumbent US Ambassador to Croatia and replaced her with Nicole McGraw, a figure who had no prior governmental or diplomatic service. He also announced retaliatory tariffs on the European Union which could impact Croatia. Given these events, how could we effectively document Trump's foreign policy on Croatia in his second term? MilaKuliž (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources:

"Trump names new U.S. ambassador to Croatia" [29]

"Trump names art collector Nicole McGraw as US ambassador to Croatia" [30]

"Local art collector and philanthropist chosen as US ambassador to Croatia by Trump" [31] MilaKuliž (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, there should be some mention of Nicole McGraw's nomination and how it affects US-Croatia relations. You probably don't need all three of these sources though, one or two is probably good enough. Željko Zivošela (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but why is this an issue? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

During the Presidency of Joe Biden, the United States and the Croatian government (with the possible exception of Zoran Milanović) maintained relatively friendly relations. Croatia made it easier for American companies to sell goods and services in Croatia, and the United States did the same for Croatian companies. Biden's administration also helped negotiate a deal where Croatia would get a lower EU tax on energy imports in exchange for sending weapons and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and taking in Ukrainian refugees. However, the Trump administration's tariffs on the European Union, which Croatia is a member state of, may very well have devastating effects on the ability of Croatian companies to sell their products in the US. Trump's confusing and inconsistent remarks regarding his administration's positions on the war in Ukraine have also caused commotion within Croatia, with conservative president Zoran Milanović applauding his statements at times, and liberal prime minister Andrej Plenković largely refuting them. Other Croatian government officials like Sandra Benčić have also spoken out about the Trump administration's apparent hostility toward Croatia. Compounding all of this, the new Trump-nominated ambassador to Croatia, Nicole McGraw, does not have any prior governmental or diplomatic service. Because of the ability these events have to shape US-Croatia relations, it is more than notable that this be documented on Wikipedia. The sources I mentioned give a good understanding of McGraw's background, as well as the current state of US-Croatia relations. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

During President Donald Trump's second term, U.S.-Croatia relations have been influenced by broader U.S. foreign policy shifts, particularly regarding NATO and European alliances.

In February 2025, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz announced that President Trump intends to pressure NATO allies who are not meeting their financial obligations. Despite the 2014 agreement for NATO members to allocate at least 2% of their GDP to defense, eight countries, including Croatia, have not fulfilled this commitment. Specifically, Croatia's defense spending decreased from 1.95% in 2021 to 1.81% in 2024. President Trump has proposed raising the defense spending benchmark to 5% of GDP, which would significantly increase the financial contributions required from NATO members. ​New York Post

Additionally, President Trump's return to office has bolstered far-right parties and nationalist sentiments across Europe. This trend raises concerns about potential fragmentation within the European Union and its alliances. In Croatia, as in other European nations, these political shifts may influence domestic and foreign policy decisions, potentially affecting the nation's relationship with the United States. ​theguardian.com

Overall, the second Trump presidency has introduced dynamics that could impact U.S.-Croatia relations, particularly concerning defense spending obligations and the broader political landscape in Europe.

Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the details, but people are complaining that the article is too long as it is. We'll probably only be able to put in 2-3 sentences on this subject. If you could condense that and summarize it in a few sentences, that would be great. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to mention those specific statistics in the article. Those are given in the New York Post source, so if we cite that source, anyone who wants to know more can visit that article and see the numbers. There is probably a more specific page on Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to list such statistics in the article itself, but Donald Trump probably isn't it. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

wow, did you use ChatGPT to write that? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No, just my fingers and thumbs. ;) Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? 1101 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST — it's not a reliable source. 1101 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Željko Zivošela, thanks for the reply. I included those three sources because those were the ones I found that I believe best explain the details of the McGraw nomination and US-Croatia relations. If you found other sources that you think would be appropriate, feel free to list them here.

I started this thread to build consensus on this topic and the appropriate reliable sources before we make an edit that summarizes the details of the McGraw nomination and the effects McGraw and the Trump administration have on US-Croatia relations. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"You probably don't need all three of these sources though, one or two is probably good enough". @Željko Zivošela, you're right, we probably only need two of these at the most. I'm not sure if there's any important information in one of the RS that isn't mentioned in the others. Like I said, if you find another RS you think may be helpful, feel free to list it here. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Here are a couple sources I found that might be helpful:

New York Post [32]

The Guardian [33] Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Those would be good for the sentence or two that I plan to propose that would summarize the second Trump administration's impact (so far) on US-Croatia relations. Neither of those mention the McGraw nomination specifically, so we'll still need one (or more) of my sources. Thank you for helping! MilaKuliž (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I researched those two websites, and it seems "New York Post" is center-right and "The Guardian" is center-left.

Just thought I would point that out. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll take that into consideration. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem ;) Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The political center is an utterly subjective notion. What's relevant in this context is fact-based reporting. The New York Post has failed numerous fact checks. 1101 (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use the New York Post for any recent coverage of recent politics. 1101 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:NYPOST it is an unreliable source for coverage of recent political events. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

NYP is not reliable. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is overdetail for this article on Trump's entire life. Trump named quite a few unqualified ambassadors since he took office. I wonder how France feels about Trump appointing his daughter Ivanka's father-in-law Charles Kushner, a convicted felon pardoned by Trump during his first term, ambassador to France, or how Greece feels about the appointment of Trump's eldest son's former fiancee. On sources see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The NY Post is not a reliable source for most content — see the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The Guardian is a reliable source, but the article cited above is an opinion — see WP:NEWSOPED. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You may want to move this discussion to Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration#Europe. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Greenland

Trump has made various comments about wanting to buy or take over Greenland, we should mention these in the article section about his second term. AjsqogihEw (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait until that becomes reality. For now it's just bluster. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a similar Greenland fiasco in Trump's first term. Didn't get very far. Željko Zivošela (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is premature right now. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

He does seem more serious about it than last time.[34] 1101 (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2025

Please remove infobox criminal as it violates consensus item #66 which had an RfC to exclude the criminal history from the infobox. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Phi Quoc Duc

Please mention Phi Quoc Duc in this article. AjsqogihEw (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

ER rejected despite existing consensus?

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

---

@Mandruss, you recently made this edit which answered @Hurricane Noah's edit request here. You told the OP to establish a consensus before requesting an edit to be made. However, the change that the OP requested has been established in "Consensus Item #66", which was referenced in the OP. Since there is already existing consensus, there seems to be no reason why the requested edit shouldn't be fulfilled.

PS - I'm new here, so if there's something I missed, I'm sorry. MilaKuliž (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm on it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Nicole McGraw new US ambassador to Croatia

There is currently no mention of Trump's nomination of Nicole McGraw as the new United States Ambassador to Croatia in this article. As I mentioned here, the sources provided by @MilaKuliž will probably suffice, although including all three is most likely not necessary. A sentence summarizing the Croatian government's response to this nomination (along with an appropriate RS) would also be helpful. Željko Zivošela (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Overdetail for this biography. Other Trump articles offer that level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we still surprised Trump nominates unqualified individuals for federal offices? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2025 (2)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

X posts

Trump's postings on the social media site X (formerly Twitter) are good sources for the things he says and likewise be mentioned in this article

BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. - Your formatting issue makes it impossible for me to see exactly what you're proposing. But, if you're including sources, it's clearly not uncontroversial as required by the edit request facility. You need to open a normal thread, not an edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, see my separate "tagger" below BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Or is it a "thread"?

Either way, same thing. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@BhopalFonduImphal: DO NOT edit others' comments except in the few situations described at WP:TPO. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

References

X posts

Trump's postings on the social media site X (formerly Twitter) are good sources for the things he says and likewise be mentioned in this article BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump's social media postings are not reliable secondary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS for more information and the list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Mention of bear market and investor uncertainty

Since Trump took office, and especially over the past few weeks, there has been a general significant decline in stock values, coupled with overall market fears and investor uncertainty over a potential market crash. Many experts and scholars believe that Trump's policies and rhetoric have partially contributed to this stock market shakeup. Since it has significant national and international financial effects, is this worthy of mention under Trump's second term section? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Relevant source: [35] ArmstadtHuber (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"...worthy of mention...?"

Unless there is ACTUAL evidence of significant stock decline/decrease that is documented by ACTUAL independent surveys/analyses and reported by ACTUAL reliable sources, then no. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that source not reliable enough for you? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." Thus, sourcing alone is never enough for inclusion. Per WP:DUE, a single source is rarely enough. We don't have to cite enough sources to satisfy DUE, but we need to show they exist on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple sources.[36][37][38][39][40] 1101 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.[41][42][43][44][45] 1101 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Taking your word for it, that passes DUE. Now it needs to pass "suitable for this biography". Unless this qualifies as summary level content, it would violate current consensus item 37. (Never mind that there is a ton of precedent for that violation. Existence of bad stuff is not justification for more bad stuff of the same ilk. I'm sorry to say that we passed that consensus and then failed to enforce it much. It's still a valid consensus.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Stock market trends — up, down, flying around ... If there's a crash, and a majority of RS attributes it to Trump's policies, it should be mentioned in this article, IMO, but not the fluctuations. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

[46][47][48][49] It's a correction — not a crash — but it is attributable to Trump's policies. 1101 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

And nothing you've said there means that it has to be in this article, the top-level biography of a 78-year-old man who happens to be president at the moment. This article has a much longer perspective. You're aware of the vast library of Trump articles, I assume. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources/citations (Potato/potahto)

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

---

@Mandruss, really? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, really. I don't joke about things like that. Stop creating frivolous threads on this page. Contact me on my user talk page if you want to discuss further. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court race

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have invested heavily in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Should this get a mention in the article? 166.196.79.26 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Overdetail for this biography. Other Trump articles may offer that level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Croatia ambassador

Donald Trump nominated Nicole McGraw as the new United States ambassador for Croatia, which has caused confusion and negative reactions from the Croatian government and various Croatian organizations because of McGraw's inexperience and perceived to be unqualified for an ambassador position.

Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Note to editors: If you have an edit proposal regarding the Trump administration's impact on US-Croatia relations and/or the nomination of Nicole McGraw for the United States Ambassador to Croatia, please see the thread Talk:Donald Trump#Consensus building: Trump's foreign policy on Croatia for existing discussion(s) regarding these topics. Thank you. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

References

NVDA stock

Nvidia's stock seems to be headed down the toilet after the latest Trump tariff announcements.[50]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-stock-drops-tech-leads-markets-lower-after-trump-backs-broader-reciprocal-tariffs-124741391.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACadGQBg1AUOvSlO0U6dF2ez1ZI6BrfkfQXM5Yr1Ovu4kdi7hbgCoaM-sDlq166ajhodoE1zbVyZlGmYF7CLe2gDngGvQti6t-Vq-s4GaFbytXa5OJTl8TiTiS9gW9obnJt11bDx7meSX3MHcW-HAoSqSTKxzmgKBRhod41irxC8 ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, and? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This article should contain a mention of Trump's rhetoric regarding actual/proposed international tariffs, and how these tariffs have caused a general decrease in stock prices (including NVDA) across the board, especially over the past 3-4 weeks. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

As an investor, I can safely tell you that this is the single largest stock market shakeup that the United States has experienced since the COVID-19 pandemic. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

See current consensus item 37. Is this "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy?" How so? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Florida election results

Trump's GOP allies just won the Florida election. A sentence in the article to reflect that would be okay. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is not about Trump's GOP allies or the Florida election. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there are more appropriate pages for information not directly related to Trump. 1101 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The results in Florida's special elections have already been added to the respective WP pages, Florida's 1st congressional district and 2025 Florida's 6th congressional district special election. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump's impact on U.S.-Croatia relations

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

---

During President Donald Trump's second term, U.S.-Croatia relations have been influenced by broader U.S. foreign policy shifts, particularly regarding NATO and European alliances.

In February 2025, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz announced that President Trump intends to pressure NATO allies who are not meeting their financial obligations. Despite the 2014 agreement for NATO members to allocate at least 2% of their GDP to defense, eight countries, including Croatia, have not fulfilled this commitment. Specifically, Croatia's defense spending decreased from 1.95% in 2021 to 1.81% in 2024. President Trump has proposed raising the defense spending benchmark to 5% of GDP, which would significantly increase the financial contributions required from NATO members. ​New York Post

Additionally, President Trump's return to office has bolstered far-right parties and nationalist sentiments across Europe. This trend raises concerns about potential fragmentation within the European Union and its alliances. In Croatia, as in other European nations, these political shifts may influence domestic and foreign policy decisions, potentially affecting the nation's relationship with the United States. ​theguardian.com

Overall, the second Trump presidency has introduced dynamics that could impact U.S.-Croatia relations, particularly concerning defense spending obligations and the broader political landscape in Europe. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

How many threads about Croatia do we need all at once? I don't know, but I suspect there's a lot of overlap/duplication going on. Note to all editors: Before starting a new thread, see if your comments will "fit" in an existing thread. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw the other thread about this after I posted. Sorry about that Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Joško Ruveneš: Mistakes happen. Can you withdraw this thread so we can get it off the page? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

How would I do that? I'm new Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Just say "Yes." :) Then I'll close as withdrawn. For future, you're allowed to close your own threads as withdrawn, provided there's no other participation. Or you can let me do it, it's one of the few reasons for my existence around here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

If my courtesy notice counts as participation (I'm not sure if it does) you have my permission to close, just in case it does. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a discussion of content. But thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Permission granted. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. :) Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Note to editors: If you have an edit proposal regarding the Trump administration's impact on US-Croatia relations and/or the nomination of Nicole McGraw for the United States Ambassador to Croatia, please see the thread Talk:Donald Trump#Consensus building: Trump's foreign policy on Croatia for existing discussion(s) regarding these topics. Thank you. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

U.S. gov't censoring "woke" topics/images on gov't websites

Due to the immense pushback about Trump censoring "woke" topics on government websites, especially the removal (and subsequent reinstatement) of the Enola Gay page on the defense department, this topic is worthy of inclusion. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

As for Enola Gay, already proposed and rejected at #Enola Gay. As for the larger issue, I'm undecided whether it warrants inclusion in this biography. Other Trump articles may offer that level of detail. If included here, one or two average-length sentences will suffice. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Separate article at U.S. Department of Defense censorship of DEI-connected material. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

Note to editors: If you have an edit proposal regarding the Trump administration's impact on US-Croatia relations and/or the nomination of Nicole McGraw for the United States Ambassador to Croatia, please see the thread Talk:Donald Trump#Consensus building: Trump's foreign policy on Croatia for existing discussion(s) regarding these topics. Thank you. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is this page so slow?

It takes about 30 seconds for the reply box to load, and almost a minute for the reply to get posted. Why is that? Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Joško Ruveneš: for me 1/2 seconds. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been getting similar delays for days. Gives me more time to think. :) No telling, other than the fact that it's 610K with a lot of code. Might make a good discussion for WP:VPT. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I started one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have that problem. It's probably just your internet connection. 1101 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

In which case I would see slowdowns everywhere. I don't. Well theoretically it could be a problem with one of the routers between me and en.wikipedia.org, a router that I don't pass through to get to any other site. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, it took a while but I'm getting it here now, too. 1101 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The HTML report about performance measures that MediaWiki shows says

NewPP limit report Parsed by <> Cached time: 20250402093719 Cache expiry: 864000 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐id, show‐toc] DiscussionTools time usage: 0.747 seconds CPU time usage: 7.973 seconds Real time usage: 8.894 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 60575/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 1744129/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 140132/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 19/100 Expensive parser function count: 93/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 1946515/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 4.667/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 17479034/52428800 bytes Lua Profile:    ?                                                               1600 ms       32.4%    dataWrapper <mw.lua:672>                                         460 ms        9.3%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::getAllExpandedArguments      280 ms        5.7%    recursiveClone <mwInit.lua:45>                                   260 ms        5.3%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::find      220 ms        4.5%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction      220 ms        4.5%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::gsub      200 ms        4.0%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::match      160 ms        3.2%    citation0 <Module:Citation/CS1:2615>                             120 ms        2.4%    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::sub      100 ms        2.0%    [others]                                                        1320 ms       26.7% Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400  Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 7515.436      1 -total 35.12% 2639.651     15 Template:Reflist 27.36% 2056.442    367 Template:Cite_news 19.06% 1432.627      1 Template:WikiProject_banner_shell 18.47% 1387.968     10 Template:Collapse 18.42% 1384.484      8 Template:Sources-talk 18.30% 1375.695      8 Template:Reflist-talk 16.49% 1239.475      5 Template:Reftalk 10.72%  806.025      1 Template:Talk_header  6.49%  488.080      9 Template:Th/abp

for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Well that's helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Its way too big. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What would you suggest we do about that? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Archive more rapidly. 1101 (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting concept. Let's see what comes of the VPT discussion notice, if anything. If nothing, and the problem continues, we could ask whether, say, four days idle is enough, and potentially modify current consensus item 13. Editors who edit only on Sundays (e.g.) would be screwed a lot. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Testing - no problem here. Seven days is the absolute minimum, IMO, what with the zone currently being flooded with shite and quite a bit of it being reflected here. Also, some of us do have a life away from WP, occasionally and not always voluntarily. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Still testing - with "edit" instead of "reply". Seven days is the absolute minimum, IMO, what with the zone currently being flooded with shite and quite a bit of it being reflected here. Also, some of us do have a life away from WP, occasionally and not always voluntarily. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Reply box and editor open immediately, posting reply takes about 10 seconds, edit a bit faster. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Start being as bit hard, and removing any threads that repeat an already asked question that is still active? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

We try to close those as duplicate, then manually archive after 24 hours. To the extent we keep after that (Croatia is an unusual case for some reason), it's not likely to be a significant contributor to the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What’s all this fuss about Croatia? 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Four threads about Croatia on the page simultaneously. Likely much duplication, which scatters discussion, forces editors to make the same comments in multiple threads, and risks conflicting consensuses about the same content. Just piss poor organization all around. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

phab:T390846 seems related. Apparantly the ATS was flooded. The ATS is several caching servers containing the most accessed pages, placed around the world in America, Europe and Asia. Snævar (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Snævar: was - So you would expect the problem to be gone now? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Its also really slow for me. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)