Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 197

Archive 190

←

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

Foreign policy 2025, Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Donald Trump#Foreign policy, 2025–present mentions something that happened during Biden's presidency, giving Trump credit for the ceasefire and Israel's Trump-backed breaking of the ceasefire:

Trump and his incoming administration helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas alongside the Biden administration, enacted a day prior to his inauguration. In March, Israel—with the Trump administration's backing—broke the ceasefire.

This edit removed "with the Trump administration's backing" as superfluous. It's as superfluous (or not) as the sentence for "helping to broker" — we give credit for both or remove both. The cited source for Trump's backing of Netanyahu’s decision to unilaterally walk away from the ceasefire [the Trump administration] took credit for brokering is AP but there are numerous other sources (Forward, Times of Israel, BBC, NY Times newsletter ("seemingly with President Trump's blessing"), WaPo (on phase-two talks never getting off the ground)).

References

Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not clear which direction is being suggested here since TNYT is significantly updating Netanyahu-Trump discussions after the cites given above, for example, from April, here: , and here . ErnestKrause (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been four days since I opened this discussion without reaction by the editor who proclaimed the clause to be superfluous, so I've just reverted the removal. IMO, something that happened before Trump took office doesn't belong in the "Second presidency" section, and probably not anywhere in this article. The ceasefire was mediated by the Biden administration, Egypt, and Qatar; Trump's involvement consisted of Witkoff "mak[ing] clear that Mr. Trump wanted a deal by the time he is inaugurated". Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted as you haven't engaged with the discussion, unless I have missed something. Also, the current wording is misleading as it implies perfidy on the part of Israel. Riposte97 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

you haven't engaged with the discussion — you mean the discussion I started, citing five sources in addition to the one cited in the article (AP News), about the edit claiming the clause was "superfluous" without saying why the editor thought it was superfluous? The discussion the editor who claimed the clause was superfluous did not engage in? misleading, perfidy — NBC, NPR (Israel broke the ceasefire agreement reached by the Biden administration. It wants new terms under Trump). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion. You did not respond to Ernest. As a side note, those sources that say 'broke' in their headlines also include the context that Israel did not renege on a deal - there was no automatic rollover to phase 2 of the ceasefire. Riposte97 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Very little on the tariffs?

where is the section on the tariffs? Mercer17 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The tariffs are mentioned in Donald Trump#Foreign policy, 2025–present. As this is a high-level overview of Trump's life and political career, we can't go into too much detail about the tariffs, but luckily we have a whole page about Tariffs in the second Trump administration. GN22 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Stolen coat of arms

Davies

Trump

Space4Time3Continuum2x, comment on your revert. We're writing a biography, preferably not to be viewed only in terms of current events. Neither article you cite (Trump International Golf Links, Scotland#Coat of arms and Donald Trump and golf#Coats of arms) shows the stolen crest. It's important that we demonstrate dishonesty before he became president. (Sort of similarly and more trivially but still indicative of his character, we decided not to say the medals in his high school photo aren't his.) He didn't just become a lawbreaker after he was elected. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's important that we demonstrate dishonesty before he became president. Already adequately demonstrated.
• Who thinks an honest 70-year-old person can become dishonest when they are elected president? Can you cite one example? Power often corrupts, but he was plenty powerful before becoming president.
• Even if included, you don't need the image to make your point, making it decoration. Eliminating the image would greatly reduce the impact on the article, possibly reducing opposition to any inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

A better word for "appropriate" is "arrogate". Closest to "stole". -member of Clan Graham: SusanLesch (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC),

The one on the right is the coat of arms Trump "appropriated" from Davies, ironically replacing "Integritas" with "Trump". I don't remember whether either one of the two golf articles ever mentioned that — is it that important? He probably thought he bought the place including that impressive-looking plaque (fist with spear!, lions!) on the walls. He trademarked it in the U.S., and only got into trouble when he tried to put it on his new golf course in Scotland where they care about misappropriations of arms. Dishonesty — he demonstrated plenty of that himself before he became president (see Trump University, Trump Foundation, and every contractor he refused to pay). Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

And, of course, he made it supremely tacky by rendering it all in gold. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Has any official body awarded him this coat of arms? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, a different one was approved in 2012. You can admire it here: lion with golden spear in its fists!, double-headed eagle! The bird is a tad plucked looking, IMO, but what do I know — if my family had a crest, it would be the peasant version, crossed pitchforks on field of potatoes, with mule rampant. There's also a description courtesy of an unnamed golf course spokesperson: The Eagle clutches golf balls making reference to the great name of golf, and the motto Numquam Concedere is Latin for Never Give Up—Trump's philosophy. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

So what function does even mentioning this silliness serve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The great pretender seeming to be what he's not? Crest hat Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Slatersteven, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did. When Trump opened golf clubs in Scotland, the Lyon Court challenged him. He made up a new one (which anyone can do) and submitted it to the College of Arms. He has two now. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Those appear to be trademarks of his golf course business, not his family Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Did the USPTO award this as a coat of arms or did they just approve his use of this image in business? Because I don't think the USPTO awards coats of arms. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, he (or rather the golf course) has one, the one granted by [Lyon King of Arms], the Scottish heraldry authority. He is (or was) also using it for his golf course in Ireland—no idea what legal status Scottish heraldry authorizations have there. Davies's heirs in the U.S. decided against suing Trump because of the expense and hassle. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No, Trump has two. This one was arrogated from Joseph E. Davies. Thank you to Gage Skidmore for the photo at Mar-a-Lago. Honestly we have more important things to attend to than arguing how to count. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

No he claims to have 2, an RS is needed to say they are his, and not those of entities he owns. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Trump part Scot? He really ought to know better. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of things Trump ought to know better that he obviously doesn't know. Or doesn't care to know. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

He's using two, the one that was granted to his Balmedie golf course and the other one that was granted to Davies. Since there is no legal regulation of non-governmental heraldry in the U.S., his use of the Davies coat of arms in the U.S. is a private matter between him and Davies's descendants who have decided to ignore the misappropriation. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

A nice way of saying that the senator decided Trump is Too Big to Sue. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverted content

I added a couple things I found notable about Trump's campaign sourced to AP and The Atlantic that were reverted for current consensus item 37. I disagree because I think each does contribute to "things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy".

"The campaign began haltingly and initially struggled to get reporters and donors to attend his events. A turning point came in February 2023, when, after watching Biden's press secretary struggle to answer a question regarding the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, Trump decided to fly to the area and buy McDonald's for the first responders. The footage resonated with voters and affirmed Trump's continued popularity." ref - expands slightly on why and how the campaign became a historic comeback, as described in the last sentence of the section.

"Instead of trying to regain support from demographics where it lost ground between 2016 and 2020, the campaign focused on expanding margins among groups where it had made gains, such as non-college-educated men." ref - the campaign strategy which led to his reelection

"Although Democrats believed Trump's legal challenges would damage his chances at winning, the cases proved energizing to Trump's supporters and added momentum to Trump's campaign." ref - Summarizes both sides of the response to Trump's felony convictions and legal challenges which happened during this time period, obviously historical.

"Although the national voter turnout was lower than in 2020, Trump earned 2.5 million more votes than in that election and won a larger share of votes in every state." ref - detail on a similar level to winning the popular vote. satkara❈talk 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You missed the part of #37 about "summary-level". None of this is summary level as I understand summary level. It doesn't mean simply including selected details, but rather providing higher-level overviews. We have almost countless sub-articles for the details.

I understand that the article already includes a lot of things violating this principle, but that's no reason to add more. In my view editors' time is better spent fixing the existing violations.

You are hardly the first, and it's looking like #37 will have to be revisited for clarification of this point. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss I still think these are summary level, although the first is the weakest and I'm ambivalent on that. #2 summarizes the campaign strategy, #3 summarizes both sides of the response, and #4 is at the same level as popular vote. #2 and #3 seem particularly relevant to the section and summary level. satkara❈talk 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Burgers, campaign focus, Democrats' beliefs — that's the level of detail that belongs in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Although ... voter turnout — op-ed(ish). Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Gulf of America

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.

---

Since the Gulf of America talk page is extended protected now, I have a question. Why is the name not changed yet? The UN recognizes the name change, and so does most of the anglosphere. Why aren't you guys changing it? Spanish wikipedia can still call it Golfo de Mexico because they don't recognize the name change. Please can we change the name? Or at least come up with a compromise? People who are doing research on the gulf will not be able to find it when googling "Gulf of America". It is only convenient.38.43.35.68 (talk) 38.43.35.68 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Gulf of America redirects to Gulf of Mexico, so people will have no problem finding it. Do you have a reliable source saying the UN recognizes that name? I thought it was just the US government that calls it that. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Well in the edit logs of the page Gulf of Mexico basin, someone found a reliable source, ask them about it. 38.43.35.68 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We haven't changed it because there is consensus on the talk page here and elsewhere that it isn't a commonly used name in reliable sources or in historical documents. We use common names for a topic over official names, and we have discussed the term "Gulf of America" numerous times. Please see the FAQ section at the top of Talk:Gulf of Mexico. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry, I won't do it again. Please don't block me. 38.43.35.68 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 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.

Why does Trump look so evil in the lead picture, isn't there a better picture that portrays him as the happy leader.

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.

---

I propose a change of trump's cover photo because it looks evil. HotAndSteamyTopics (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You should ask him that, as this is his official portrait. — Czello ^(music) 10:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

We use the official portrait. This is the current official portrait. End of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:52, 8 May 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.

Trump's Flaws

All humans have flaws, along with Donald Trump. To get a clear view of who people are we must also look at flaws so we can be aware and carful. To start Trump stormed the capital on Jan 6 2021. He did not want the vice president to continue counting votes because he believed that it was impossible for him to lose the election. He did not just storm the capital, but also rioted and did not stop when he should have. Many people were injured and he did and does not care that all those people that were injured. He has put tariffs on many international products. This makes it difficult for many families to be able to continue buying the same product and foods the used to. He has small to NO respect for woman and their writes, he has cheated on his wife and does not seem to care. He has put many concerning people into office. Not to mention the fact that he has LET Elon Musk take over a government facility and has fired many and many people. He has called himself KING, and he IS NOT king, he is a president! If we continue on the path that America is going we will slowly lose the democracy that we as American have fought so hard to gain. Now there are ups and downs of all people but we as Americans should be concerned about these things. I am not trying to make Trump look all bad, but we must be concerned for our country. Look on both sides of the debate, please. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Best you read up on WP:NOTFORUM. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Captions for the audio sample.

Good evening Wikipedia, I’m afraid that while listening to audio sample on this page, I noticed that when Mr. Trump noted that the world has faced many comprehensive health threats, there exists a captioned sentence that the President did not actually say, along the lines of “Like the COVID-19 vaccine.” I have not listened to the rest of it, but I can only assume a nefarious Wikipedia user is launching his (or perhaps her) partisan attacks through the audio sample captions, and maybe there are even more in the rest of the audio. I should like to ask that the captions be reviewed to contain only what Mr. Trump actually said. Thank you all very much. 2601:1C1:8384:46D0:7185:2CDB:2E8:8B12 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Like everything on Wikipedia and our sister projects, captions can generally be edited by anyone - in this case, the file is on Wikimedia Commons as it is a free file (no copyright) that anyone can use. That's where the captions are also added to it, which you can see by clicking the "TimedText" tab at the top of the file. It was edited about a week or two ago to add that by someone who was obviously not trying to improve the captions in any way - so I just undid their edit. It should be fixed relatively soon (if not already), potentially with some delay for caching or other technical limitations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Very little on the tariffs?

where is the section on the tariffs? Mercer17 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The tariffs are mentioned in Donald Trump#Foreign policy, 2025–present. As this is a high-level overview of Trump's life and political career, we can't go into too much detail about the tariffs, but luckily we have a whole page about Tariffs in the second Trump administration. GN22 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Crypto and conflicts of interest

Space4Time3Continuum2x, aren't you drawing an artificial line between crypto and the Trump Organization's machinations? I don't know enough about cryptocurrency to restore revert 1 and revert 2. But I did wake up this morning to The New York Times headlines that Trump has serious COI. I believe he may have benefited from his executive order that legitimized five types of crypto, one of which World Liberty Financial held, until they sold? One of my podcasts said Trump promotion in crypto is baldly self-serving. He only owns maybe 60% of World Liberty. He only made 80 or 100 million dollars on his meme coin. Which you have erased here. I think this article needs a spot to address insider trading and conflicts of interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there are enough RS for "Conflicts of interest" as a separate subsection of "Second presidency". Ethical conflicts (including pardons of crypto entrepreneurs), emoluments — World Liberty and its Chief Crypto Advocate, aka President of the United States. Reuters also has an in-depth article. And one of the few bills Trump signed into law in his first 100 days was one reverting the 2024 IRS update to its crypto tax reporting rule that made it applicable to decentralized finance (DeFi) exchanges. Executive order that legitimized five types of crypto—you mean the executive order that created the "Strategic Reserve"? At the moment, the reserve consists of cryptocurrency "seized as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings", i.e., no tax dollars. Wouldn't Congress have to allocate funds to buy cryptocurrency to put into the reserve? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the reserve, maybe better termed "stockpile," is made of forfeited digital assets as the footnote said (budget-neutral). However. "The day the president announced the crypto reserve, the value of World Liberty's Ether stash rose by $33 million..." (and then rapidly lost value) NYT, so his family business made a bundle on the executive order. When making the order Trump gave legitimacy to five types: "bitcoin, ether, XRP, solana and cardano". Reuters. WLFI holds Ether, Bitcoin, Solana, Sui. The Street. Separately, Eric Trump pushed Ether on X during the tariff meltdown. Crypto's not a sure thing, but the Trumps chose the winners and made a fortune since the second inauguration. Maybe the profits in trading fees on his meme coin belong in this new section. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I'll add later on:

Conflicts of interest, 2025–present

See also: Business career of Donald Trump

In his first term, he opposed cryptocurrency; for his second, Trump campaigned for digital assets. In January, Trump launched the $Trump meme coin, earning between $86–100 million in trading fees in two weeks. Peaking at $75.35 the day before inauguration, the coin's value then declined. Creating a contest, Trump invited the top coin holders to a private dinner, bringing the coin's value back up 70 percent and the total in circulation to $2.4 billion. By April, fees collected by entities affiliated with the Trump Organization whose stake is 80 percent totaled $349 million. The Campaign Legal Center director of ethics said “criminal conflicts of interest statutes don’t apply to the president” and that the contest is most likely legal.

Sources

-SusanLesch (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Too much detail for summary-level. Second presidency of Donald Trump#Conflicts of interest has everything from bibles, sneakers, and crypto to Trump not placing his business into a blind trust, repealing ethics rules for former Government employees turned lobbyists, and telling investors to buy stocks hours before pausing tariffs. Some of it is a continuation from conflicts of interest in his first term, or, as "Second presidency" puts it, Trump mirrored his first term's ethics commitments — don't know if that's intentional, sounds like "didn't have any then, doesn't have any now" . There's also a subsection "Cryptocurrency memecoin" ON STRUMP and SMELANIA. What we should do is reduce the content of that section to summary-level, generalize along the lines of "everything from bibles, sneakers, and crypto to ..."? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Philip Bump's opinion about the NY Times article you cited above: an exhaustive look at the Trumps’ creation of a crypto-centered investment structure called World Liberty Financial. It has explicit manifestations of nearly everything Comer was unable to prove about Biden and his family: exercising presidential power for the benefit of the company (and by extension himself and his sons), allowing partners to assume the trappings of the federal government for private financial discussions, foreign investors admitting that their interest is driven by the president’s participation. World Liberty isn't mentioned in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Conflicts of interest yet. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

How about we start a new article say, Cryptocurrency and Donald Trump? For one thing we're talking about millions if not billions of dollars vs. $60 Bibles and $400 sneakers. Second, the second presidency article is overflowing (>15000 words). Third I don't believe the section there now about crypto begins to cover the topic. Wikipedia needs somebody to come through and do a good job on this. All I can commit to is a quick overview. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at a summary-level overview for his second term conflicts of interest. The above is too focused on cryptocurrency in particular. BootsED (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you did a very good job. One note is please be more careful of closely paraphrasing your sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried but was not sure how I could say something in a different way that didn't say something that wasn't true or was possibly misleading. BLP concerns make me want to stick closer to paraphrasing rather than violating this rule. Maybe we can put some quotations around them? BootsED (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You can attribute quotes to The New York Times, or to Eric Lipton or Peter Baker. I brought this up because I've had a similar copyvio problem in the past. BootsED, you done good here, thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2025

Add suffix "Sr." to the end of his name at the top of his biography. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - @MakaylaHippo1998: and I'll try to explain why. While yes, he is a "Sr." technically speaking, when people say "Donald Trump" they are almost always referring to this man (the current president). His children (including Donald Trump Jr.) are covered at the appropriate point in the article - so it is unnecessary to put "Sr." at the end of his name at the top. Regardless, this is a change that would need a consensus to implement - but I doubt one would form. You're free to start a discussion on adding that if you think it would be beneficial, but I would encourage you to review Wikipedia policies/guidelines first and be able to provide a policy/guideline based argument as to why you think it should be added. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:EDITREQ, in particular its third sentence: "If the change is potentially controversial, obtain consensus before submitting the request." The rest is really irrelevant in this context. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarity change to first paragraph of Intro

I believe the first paragraph of the introduction is sorely lacking in clarity, temporally speaking. It is too bare-bones and lacks encyclopedic style. I believe a handful of small edits should be made, pursuing the more clear model of other prominent presidential heads of state.

The current concerned section is:

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.

My proposed edits are underlined:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman serving as the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

Some examples of similar (more clear) structures in other pages of heads of states in presidential republics include:

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (born 26 February 1954) is a Turkish politician who is the 12th and current president of Turkey since 2014. He previously served as the 25th prime minister from 2003 to 2014 as part of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which he co-founded in 2001.

Prabowo Subianto Djojohadikusumo (EYD: Joyohadikusumo; born 17 October 1951) is an Indonesian politician, businessman, and former four-star army general serving as the eighth president of Indonesia since 2024. He was previously the 26th minister of defense under president Joko Widodo from 2019 to 2024.

Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego ODB ODSC ODIC (Latin American Spanish: [ɡusˈtaβo fɾanˈsisko ˈpetɾo uˈreɣo]; born 19 April 1960) is a Colombian politician who is the 34th and current president of Colombia since 2022.

NipponGinko (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe there was an RfC about this so any changes might require broader consensus. But most of the additions don't add information: "Is" already conveys that he's currently the 47th president, and naturally to anyone with a calendar that means he was previously the 45th president. I wouldn't be opposed to adding "since 2025", though. DecafPotato (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding "since 2025", though. Yes, we know, since you supported a proposal that included that. That proposal failed. Please respect that consensus and refrain from trying for another bite at the apple because you were on the losing side. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure the first sentence of my comment saying that any changes would require "broader consensus" (i.e., a new RfC) makes very clear that I'm not trying another bite at the apple. But given that the proposer proposed three changes and I was giving reasoning against two of them, it just felt odd to omit any mention of the third. Believe me when I say I'm not interested in another RfC on this anytime soon, lol. DecafPotato (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Any comment about content is a revisitation of the consensus, and it invites more comments about content, from the OP and all others reading the thread. If you agree that revisitation would be unhelpful, don't even take the first step down that path (or second, if you count the OP). Saying that any changes would require a new RfC invites a new RfC, and I'm sure you know how hard it is to shut down a new RfC. If one would be counterproductive, don't say anything that might encourage one.

No significant new content arguments are presented. No change in the external (to Wikipedia) situation has occurred since consensus 70 was established. A potential change in the editor mix is a horrible reason for revisitation of any consensus.

I think it's important for the article's regulars/frequenters to be on the same page about this. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Just 11 weeks ago, a consensus was reached for the current language with the participation of about 18 editors. See current consensus item 70. I'm sorry you weren't here to participate, but your participation would not have changed the outcome anyway. Nothing has changed since then, and we are not going to revisit the consensus so soon merely because there is some disagreement with it (there was already some disagreement with it, as it was far from unanimous). That would be a terrible use of volunteer time. My suggestion is to withdraw this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

How is the word "is" unclear? He is the president. Present tense. As in, right now. "Serving as" carries an air of "well, he's not really the president, but we're stuck with him until the real president shows up" and adding "currently" is just treating our readers as idiots who need everything spoon-fed to them. Showing us other articles that are poorly written doesn't mean we should make this one worse. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

And that also means that the current phrasing "he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021" should be changed to "he was also the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Second presidency Rephrase second presidency in lead, remove mention of mass pardons of J6 rioters, add DOGE

Change heading of this discussion to reflect what it is proposing. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the lead includes these topics: 1) J6 pardons, 2) mass layoffs of federal workers, 3) tariffs on nearly all countries, 4) began trade wars with Canada, Mexico, and China, 5) legal challenges to broad use of executive orders and deportations of immigrants, and 6) "High-profile cases have underscored Trump's broad interpretation of a unitary executive theory of power, and led to significant conflicts with the federal courts."

I'm looking over several analyses of Trump's first 100 days: Politico, PBS, Reuters, Washington Post, ABC, AP News, and the LA Times

1. Out of these 7 sources, 6 do not mention #1 at all and 1 calls it the least surprising. I believe it's undue weight including it in the lead.

2. 6/7 mention this

3. All mention this

4. this should be rephrased, because the trade war with China was ongoing and the war with Mexico and Canada has become the least consequential. PBS says "tariffs on allies and adversaries alike" which I think is better phrasing, perhaps alongside a note that he has raised tariffs to the highest level in over a century.

5. & 6. all mention this, more so his unprecedented use of executive orders. But the subclause seems repetitive with 5, and I think it could be reworded.

Things that are frequently mentioned but *not* in the lead or in Donald_Trump#Early_actions,_2025–present are DOGE, turn toward expansionism, and a stronger emphasis on deportations (illegal immigration, use of AEA, student deportations), and a weakening of alliances. I assume a lot of it was written early in the Presidency and needs updating to avoid WP:RECENTISM.

Objections to beginning a reshaping here? satkara❈talk 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I like this approach. Riposte97 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Do any of these warrant further expansion in the main body of the article, based on your reading of the seven sources? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause almost all the big topics are mentioned but the deporations could be expanded to meet the coverage I'm seeing. The only widely discussed topic that I don't see mentioned is health and human services related actions, but I don't know how involved Trump is with them and whether it's appropriate for inclusion. Maybe a couple sentences under "domestic policy"? satkara❈talk 17:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Analyses of Trump’s first 100 days belong in First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency. We adhere to WP:NOTNEWS, in this case consider the enduring notability of events in Trump's life. Beginning a reshaping here: I oppose locking in content based on opinions stated on the occasion of the (somewhat arbitrary?) 100-day mark. As for the J6 pardons, they had top priority for Trump, and they are the conclusion of something we do mention in the lead: After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump attempted to overturn the result, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack in 2021. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time in the last thirty days that other editors are bringing up the topic of which main issues from the 2nd term should go into the lede; it appears that it might be useful that these main topics from the second presidency should also receive more attention in the main body of the main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x I didn't mean adding a discussion of Trump's first 100, but used the selection to determine a consensus in reliable sources of what Trump's most consequential actions have been so far. So, for example, only one slight mention of the pardons indicates that it's not very consequential and shouldn't be in the lead, especially over alternative, widely referenced topics. satkara❈talk 17:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be best to wait until we know what have been the main issues. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

These are the ones from the 2nd presidency which were added last week: his second presidency included issues such as (i) "pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers. He (ii) imposed tariffs on nearly all countries and began a trade war with Canada and Mexico. Many of his (iii) administration's actions, including deportations of immigrants and his use of executive orders, have drawn lawsuits challenging their legality. (iv) High-profile cases have underscored Trump's broad interpretation of a unitary executive theory of power, and led to (v) significant conflicts with the federal courts." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

But there could be worse to come, we are not a newspaper, we can wait. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The pardons and commutations for the January 6 rioters were added to body on January 21 and to the lead on January 23. They can't be undone, so there won't be an update. What we have now looks summary-level to me. The mass layoffs have also been in the article since around that time but that's an evolving story, with lawsuits that usually take time. Tariffs, deportations—quoting the Chief Crypto Advocate, "we'll see what happens". Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the OP that mentioning the Jan6 pardons in the lead is unnecessary, as it's not surprising Trump would do this; also previous presidents have pardoned similar criminals, for example draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. The "mass layoffs of federal workers" is a different story; this is something that no recent US president has done and definitely worth keeping in the lead due to its drastic effects on the US government. MilaKuliž (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support this change. Regarding immigration - it may be relevant to mention Trump's increased usage/deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which has become a very controversial issue in the United States. However, we shouldn't attempt to set in stone a new paragraph, as new information/information considered important will likely change as Trump's presidency continues. MilaKuliž (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, including on the proposed removal of the January 6 pardons mention in the lead. Like the cuts that were done this year to the lead's paragraph on his first term, we should continually use recent RS to determine what is notable enough for mention. — Goszei (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and believe that January 6 should not be mentioned in the lead, because it received little news coverage and had negligible impact relative to every other action Trump has taken in 2025. It is literally less than one sentence "...he also granted clemency to all January 6 rioters convicted or charged, including those who violently attacked police, by pardoning more than 1,500 and commuting the sentences of 14" in the body. Hence this is not WP:DUE or WP:SUMMARY compliant to be placed in the lead, and I am removing it now. I also agree that the wording makes little sense considering the "trade war" with Mexico and Canada has seen no escalation, while it has with China, and reciprocal tariffs were higher on some other nations (e.g. Vietnam) before being paused (and they were mostly paused on Mexico and Canada too). I will slightly edit this wording to be more accurate. Bill Williams 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. January 6 got a lot of news coverage. And it was a major historic event. Andre🚐 21:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say the J6 pardons are noteworthy enough as they were massive (1,500 people), on the very first day, and released people who attempting to overturn the prior election in his favor in an attack on the US Capitol. So it seems due. BootsED (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It has not stood the test of time in RS treatments of Trump's second presidency. I support removal. Riposte97 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the article for Donald Trump which encompasses his entire life, not just events in the last 6 months. Andre🚐 20:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That observation would seem to go against your point…? Riposte97 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Not in how I meant it. Allow me to elaborate. The question is, using a 10-year-view of the Trump biography, would this event - pardoning the Jan 6 insurrectionists and his various statements about the deaths of the capitol police and so on - factor in to a 360-degree public view of Donald J Trump the man and the president? Andre🚐 21:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well, I’m not sure. Maybe. I think RS treatment is the safest way to go where there's uncertainty. Riposte97 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

RS yes, but start by thinking about what published books and journal articles are saying and then proceed from there to a cross-section of contemporary news coverage and other material. It is still recent of course, so there may not be a ton yet. Trump's use of pardon power for example Michael Flynn, Joe Arpaio and others attracts a lot of attention and discussion. Most academics will write that America is is experiencing unprecedented erosion of institutions and norms under the Trump administrations and Jan 6 actions and activities will likely be a big part of that in the history book. See recent RS news all from 2025: Andre🚐 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've listed the five or six 2nd term events a little higher up in this thread as currently being discussed in the lede; are you saying that J6 pardons were just as important, more important, less important, etc? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• The pardon of 1,500 people judged guilty by many jurors of various crimes related to the first invasion of the US Capital since the War of 1812 received enormous coverage and is still discussed today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd note that the Capitol has actually been attacked multiple times since its destruction in 1814. The fact that no one making pronouncements on TV knows that may say something about the longevity of the J6 pardons. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  What TV commentators may think is largely not relevant to the conversation. The fact that something hasn't happened notably often since the 1800s is not the question; if Bill Clinton had commuted sentences in 2001 of the Capitol bombers and made a number of public pronouncements about it or continually referred to them as hostages maybe that would have figured more prominently in his presidential biography. Also he commuted their sentences not pardoned them, and he did so after they served quite a bit of prison time. It is a facile comparison at best. Andre🚐 22:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The rioters tried to prevent the counting of the electoral votes, i.e., the confirmation of Biden's victory. Four years later, the loser of the 2020 election issuing blanket clemency to every one of them — and now considering granting them restitution for the "injustice" of having been incarcerated for attacking and grievously injuring police officers, trashing the Capitol, and threatening the lives of senators, representatives, and the vice president — that's a lead-worthy part of Trump's bio. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nearly sixty days

Both of the RfCs on this Talk page are still open after nearly sixty days of waiting, and Space4T has already listed them for some help on the RfC page. Since this Trump page has a high daily page count, possibly someone can think of another approach to getting the RfCs looked at and consider if an 'admin help' might be applied. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, 29 and 26 "days of waiting", respectively, which is not unusual. You're looking at days since opened.

Competent uninvolved closure of complex discussions is a tough and largely thankless task, many editors make it more difficult (such as engaging in repetitive, circular, or long-winded discussion and unnecessary tangents), and so there aren't many experienced editors willing to spend their volunteer time doing it. That translates to long waits.

As for whether this article should be given special treatment, perhaps you should raise that at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This was the "Closure requests" project page at the time Mandruss listed the older RfC (Unite the Right) for uninvolved closure. At the time, two of the RfCs awaiting closure were initiated more than 100 days and another six between 92 and 70 days ago. Our two have moved almost to the top of the waiting list, with 60 and 57 days since they were initiated, i.e., 30 and 27 days on the closure waiting list as of today. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Opening

Why is it necessary to start his “about” with “Born into a wealthy family”? It should simply say born in Queens. The statement is irrelevant to the statement point. 152.86.244.162 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Giving context to his background is important when documenting him. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a biography. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the detail looks out of place, but the detail is important. I think we should move the information down to the next sentence, where his family's real estate business is mentioned. Terraviridian (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Changing subsection title from "Judiciary, 2025–present" to ?

Right now, the text of this section says "See also: List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump" and

Following legal setbacks, Trump increased his criticism of the judiciary and called for impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him. He threatened, signed executive actions, and ordered investigations into his political opponents, critics, and organizations aligned with the Democratic Party. His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis. He engaged in an unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers that previously represented positions adverse to himself.

Much of this text is not about the judiciary. Instead, it's about (a) Trump's attempts to use the power of the executive branch, especially the DOJ, to go after perceived enemies, (b) targeting of specific law firms and lawyers, and (c) not being bound by law. So either the title of this subsection needs to be broader to reflect diverse attacks on the legal profession and weaponization of the DOJ, or much of the text should be omitted. If it's broadened, then his response yesterday about not knowing whether he has to uphold the Constitution should likely be added (widely discussed in the media).

FWIW, the citation in the first sentence doesn't support the claim that he has called for impeaching judges, and I am only aware of his having called for the impeachment of one, James Boasberg. (Some allies in Congress have called for impeaching others and/or for defunding certain district courts if their judges are ruling against the Trump administration.) Also, List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump doesn't show that he's appointed any judges so far, so it might be better to hold off on using that as a "See also." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been a recurring theme in the first 100 days. For example, "WASHINGTON, D.C., April 25, 2025 – This morning, FBI agents arrested Judge Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, on charges that she interfered with an arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)," and many other issues. The section seems justified to keep; are you suggesting re-naming or adding additional sections to cover all aspects of Trump dealing with friendly and unfriendly judges, and friendly and unfriendly law firms? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

My preference is that the title be changed, so that it captures the diverse ways that he is interacting with the legal profession in his second presidency (e.g., criticizing judges and calling for the impeachment of Boasberg, ordering legal investigations of perceived enemies, targeting lawyers and law firms via EOs). As an alternative, keep the title as is, and remove the content that the title doesn't apply to. I should have been clearer that I'm asking people to weigh in on which option they'd prefer. Since this is Trump's BLP, it should focus on Trump's own statements and actions rather than try to incorporate everything might fall under the umbrella of the administration's use of the DOJ, etc. writ large. I personally see Dugan's arrest as falling in that latter category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"My preference is that the title be changed," Change the heading to what? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, which is why I put a question mark. But if people agree that the scope should encompass more than the judiciary, I think something like "Rule of law" is neutral and encompassing. I welcome other suggestions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

All right. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I would keep it as is for now. As time goes on an entirely new section may be needed to cover this. BootsED (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary image clutter

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.

---

@Akandkur, this edit violates this "if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" restriction. Self-revert. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 14 May 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.

Influence & legacy

I believe this article is incomplete without a section detailing his influence on global politics akin to the section on the “Trumpism” pages. This goes hand in hand with the fact that Trump has changed the political landscape, popular culture, and even language of the country he is president of. This article fails to detail Trump’s enormous influence - only his influence on the Republican Party. Utopiayouser (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a biography, not a simpering hagiography. "Influence & legacy" analysis comes years down the road, through the lens of time. Zaathras (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I wasn’t coming at this from a pro-Trump perspective, and I think dismissing this as “hagiographic” is a bit silly. His legacy being to promote similar right wing figures and movements around the globe is already evident - no passage of time needed. See Javier Milei at CPAC, or, as I referenced in the original post, the article on Trumpism which contains a similar section. Utopiayouser (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

All I’m saying is that parts of his influence and legacy are already apparent and I think the article would benefit from including them. I apologize if I was a bit too enthusiastic in the original post, just trying to contribute and help where I can. Utopiayouser (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

He's less than four months into his second term. His influence on global politice is currently described in Donald Trump#Foreign policy, 2025–present, changed the political landscape in the rest of Donald Trump#Second presidency (2025–present). We'll see what's left of the country and the world on January 20, 2029, high noon. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's been enough time. We are one month away from the ten-year anniversary of Trump's 2016 presidential run announcement. And still, that was two whole presidencies ago. This would be chronologically equivalent to writing about Reagan's legacy during Clinton's presidency. This isn't a perfect comparison since Reagan was long gone from politics by the time Clinton was in, but my point that a lot of time has passed still stands.

Also, the page for Biden already has a "legacy" section. Terraviridian (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed several weeks ago when the current Assessment section was indicated as serving the purpose of a "Legacy" section; a "Legacy" section seemed to be poorly titled for a president who is still in office. The Assessment section seems to serve this task. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. This is a good point Terraviridian (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This would be chronologically equivalent to writing about Reagan's legacy 110 days into Reagan's second term. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Unite the Right Comments

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.

---

Uninvolved closure requested. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

  Agree with Simon here, academic peer-reviewed sources are infinitely more reliable than media articles, and per WP:BESTSOURCES they are what should be used. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's nothing in WP:BESTSOURCES that supports this argument. I hope the closer discounts these "academic articles invalidate all other reliable sources" arguments. I'm not sure it matters in this overall discussion, but the editors citing it here are way off base. Nemov (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Obv peer-reviewed academic sources are by far the most authoritative and reliable. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also see WP:ACADEMICBIAS, it’s not a violation of NPOV to only give the POVs present in scholarly sources Kowal2701 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Nemov. Policy is not with you here, and it's clear why - academic analysis of events such as this will inevitably be concerned with abstract questions not directly relevant to this BLP. It is not the role of academia to form a public record, at least not for events this recent. Riposte97 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s of course their role to interpret them Kowal2701 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s not Wikipedia’s job to be a "public record" (WP:NOTNEWS). Academic sources unanimously support the current wording, and therefore it should be retained. If you can find a single academic source which supports your POV here then we can reconsider NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Academic sources only outweigh reliable journalistic sources on academic topics. The argument that this event can only be interpreted by academics or is an academic topic is frankly absurd. This event isn't a math or science equation that requires academic expertise to understand. Academics are also not immune from political bias. Nemov (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Which is why we probably wouldn’t bother if it was only one academic source, but it’s several all saying the same thing. There’s no policy which says academic sources should only be used for academic topics, whatever you mean by that, peer-reviewed journal articles have much higher standards for factual accuracy (and obv interpretation of events) than any media company. We seek to reflect the bias in sources, our personal opinions are irrelevant. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:NEWSORG, which states that Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, it's important to note that this event is clearly not an academic topic. The coverage is straightforward, and the attempt to discount reliable journalistic sources in favor of academic ones appears to be either a misinterpretation of policy or an effort to move the goalposts. Nemov (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Again, as Simon said, the study of rhetoric is of course an academic topic, and it is not at all straightforward. Again, per WP:ACADEMICBIAS, we strongly favour academic sources. Trying to use less reliable sources to balance a perceived bias in the literature is what's absurd, and could be tantamount to POV pushing, or at best a misinterpretation of NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  We're going in circles now, thanks for responding. Nemov (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise! Kowal2701 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 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

• Support change proposed wording is more accurate, while the current wording is misleading and inappropriate for a BLP, since there is a high burden of proof to imply that someone is a white supremacist. 18:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose per Simon, the WP:BESTSOURCES here are academic peer-reviewed sources, and as has been demonstrated, they more closely support the current wording over the proposal. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 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. 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)

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.

Crypto and conflicts of interest

Space4Time3Continuum2x, aren't you drawing an artificial line between crypto and the Trump Organization's machinations? I don't know enough about cryptocurrency to restore revert 1 and revert 2. But I did wake up this morning to The New York Times headlines that Trump has serious COI. I believe he may have benefited from his executive order that legitimized five types of crypto, one of which World Liberty Financial held, until they sold? One of my podcasts said Trump promotion in crypto is baldly self-serving. He only owns maybe 60% of World Liberty. He only made 80 or 100 million dollars on his meme coin. Which you have erased here. I think this article needs a spot to address insider trading and conflicts of interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there are enough RS for "Conflicts of interest" as a separate subsection of "Second presidency". Ethical conflicts (including pardons of crypto entrepreneurs), emoluments — World Liberty and its Chief Crypto Advocate, aka President of the United States. Reuters also has an in-depth article. And one of the few bills Trump signed into law in his first 100 days was one reverting the 2024 IRS update to its crypto tax reporting rule that made it applicable to decentralized finance (DeFi) exchanges. Executive order that legitimized five types of crypto—you mean the executive order that created the "Strategic Reserve"? At the moment, the reserve consists of cryptocurrency "seized as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings", i.e., no tax dollars. Wouldn't Congress have to allocate funds to buy cryptocurrency to put into the reserve? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the reserve, maybe better termed "stockpile," is made of forfeited digital assets as the footnote said (budget-neutral). However. "The day the president announced the crypto reserve, the value of World Liberty's Ether stash rose by $33 million..." (and then rapidly lost value) NYT, so his family business made a bundle on the executive order. When making the order Trump gave legitimacy to five types: "bitcoin, ether, XRP, solana and cardano". Reuters. WLFI holds Ether, Bitcoin, Solana, Sui. The Street. Separately, Eric Trump pushed Ether on X during the tariff meltdown. Crypto's not a sure thing, but the Trumps chose the winners and made a fortune since the second inauguration. Maybe the profits in trading fees on his meme coin belong in this new section. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I'll add later on:

Conflicts of interest, 2025–present

See also: Business career of Donald Trump

In his first term, he opposed cryptocurrency; for his second, Trump campaigned for digital assets. In January, Trump launched the $Trump meme coin, earning between $86–100 million in trading fees in two weeks. Peaking at $75.35 the day before inauguration, the coin's value then declined. Creating a contest, Trump invited the top coin holders to a private dinner, bringing the coin's value back up 70 percent and the total in circulation to $2.4 billion. By April, fees collected by entities affiliated with the Trump Organization whose stake is 80 percent totaled $349 million. The Campaign Legal Center director of ethics said “criminal conflicts of interest statutes don’t apply to the president” and that the contest is most likely legal.

Sources

-SusanLesch (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Too much detail for summary-level. Second presidency of Donald Trump#Conflicts of interest has everything from bibles, sneakers, and crypto to Trump not placing his business into a blind trust, repealing ethics rules for former Government employees turned lobbyists, and telling investors to buy stocks hours before pausing tariffs. Some of it is a continuation from conflicts of interest in his first term, or, as "Second presidency" puts it, Trump mirrored his first term's ethics commitments — don't know if that's intentional, sounds like "didn't have any then, doesn't have any now" . There's also a subsection "Cryptocurrency memecoin" ON STRUMP and SMELANIA. What we should do is reduce the content of that section to summary-level, generalize along the lines of "everything from bibles, sneakers, and crypto to ..."? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Philip Bump's opinion about the NY Times article you cited above: an exhaustive look at the Trumps’ creation of a crypto-centered investment structure called World Liberty Financial. It has explicit manifestations of nearly everything Comer was unable to prove about Biden and his family: exercising presidential power for the benefit of the company (and by extension himself and his sons), allowing partners to assume the trappings of the federal government for private financial discussions, foreign investors admitting that their interest is driven by the president’s participation. World Liberty isn't mentioned in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Conflicts of interest yet. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

How about we start a new article say, Cryptocurrency and Donald Trump? For one thing we're talking about millions if not billions of dollars vs. $60 Bibles and $400 sneakers. Second, the second presidency article is overflowing (>15000 words). Third I don't believe the section there now about crypto begins to cover the topic. Wikipedia needs somebody to come through and do a good job on this. All I can commit to is a quick overview. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at a summary-level overview for his second term conflicts of interest. The above is too focused on cryptocurrency in particular. BootsED (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you did a very good job. One note is please be more careful of closely paraphrasing your sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried but was not sure how I could say something in a different way that didn't say something that wasn't true or was possibly misleading. BLP concerns make me want to stick closer to paraphrasing rather than violating this rule. Maybe we can put some quotations around them? BootsED (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You can attribute quotes to The New York Times, or to Eric Lipton or Peter Baker. I brought this up because I've had a similar copyvio problem in the past. BootsED, you done good here, thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I added a good source that tells us who is his ethics advisor, and that he won't make new business deals with foreign governments, and that all profits from foreign patronag e goes to the U.S. Treasury. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss, you wrote in your edit summary, "rv per current consensus item 37. How is this summary level? How is this particular detail "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy"? Better suited for a subarticle." I agree I may have chosen the wrong detail and have no problem with your revert. However I do have a problem with the entire §Conflicts of interest section. I began the §Conflicts of interest section in the cryptocurrency subarticle. I don't know yet but it looks like the Trumps made some good faith efforts to avoid COI. Our article here is "breathless"ly one-sided. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree I may have chosen the wrong detail - I don't wish to belabor the point, but that is not an agreement. My objection was not the choice of detail but the level of detail. Therefore I would have the same objection to a different detail. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I trust that's a negative way of saying that you don't object to the section being corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the section you added to the cryptocurrency article is one-sided, per your cited Reuters source. You cite the statements made by the Trump Organization but don't mention the ethics expert who says that they have the same conflicts they had in the first term. At the time, ethics experts, including the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, urged Trump to completely divest or set up a blind trust for his assets. He resisted. Asked about the new agreement, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said, "Most of that is not new, and therefore not good enough." Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the article is clearly marked "under construction" and I haven't seen an ounce of help from anybody here. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Cancel consensus #9 (external link to "thetrumparchive.com")?

The external link used to read

#https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ Archive of Donald Trump's Tweets <!-- DO NOT CHANGE without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item 9. --> <!-- Link of his suspended Twitter account: [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump Donald Trump] on Twitter (personal account, permanently suspended as of January 8, 2021) -->

I have reinserted the second explanation (suspended Twitter account), don't known when or why it was removed. I also added an explanation how to get to the archive of pre-suspension Twitter posts as the archive appears to have added "TruthSocial" posts (reposts of TruthSocial posts?) up to November 4, 2024.

I was going to propose cancelling consensus #9 but am now not sure. Thoughts? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would keep the archive, as it also includes tweets that Trump deleted. Since his twitter has been reinstated, maybe change the CC#9 to include a link to his twitter page (another link to the Truth Social page may be warranted). Mgasparin (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

A link to the twitter/Truth Social pages is probably necessary actually. I just looked at the archive and it hasn't updated since November 4, 2024. Mgasparin (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No inline citations in the lead section

Why is this? The first citation is not until the next section. DankPedia (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead is intended to summarize the article and therefore doesn't have to include references when its statements are sourced later in the body of the article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In particular, if the lead has sources or statements which do not appear in the body in the article, the lead is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Slight clarification, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is an essay, not a policy. There are occasions where facts can be included in the lead that are not in the body. It is generally not recommended, however. BootsED (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Ditto, seconding BootsED. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADREL paragraph 2. It's a guideline, not a policy, and many content decisions are based in guidelines, not policies.

Read carefully. The example "exceptions" are so obscure as to be virtually insignificant. In the first sentence of paragraph 2, some brilliant editor thought it would be helpful to have a sentence that almost directly contradicts itself in a battle between "should" and "must". But the lead-follows-body principle has served this article well for eight years with no need for exceptions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Article feels negative/slanted

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.

---

I'm no fan of the guy — I wish I didn't have to mention that to try and have a rational discussion — but the article reads as being quite biased in the mentioning of facts perspectives and opinions in the lead paragraphs (only negative accomplishments and critical opinions are mentioned).

What I am a big fan of is Wikipedia's mission of providing disinterested information from a neutral POV, and I think we could do better. Discuss? 2600:100F:B1A2:12EF:7814:E8FF:FEF0:2AB7 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 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.

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: 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. 1101 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. 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)

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)

The presidency of Herbert Hoover was defined by the massive stock market crash and subsequent depression. If anything close to that happens during Trump's presidency, I assume it would warrant coverage on Wikipedia. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we cross that bridge if/when we come to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

The DOD isn't the only place it's occurring, nor is it just websites. It's also occurring in grant funding (for ex., research into women's health, health disparities by race) and school funding. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No tax on tips

No tax on tips act passed today 100-0 2601:156:8181:260:D0F:6E46:9C4B:D6CD (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Not suitable for this biography. Perhaps try one of the many Trump subarticles. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Aside from Mandruss's point, it only passed the Senate. It has not passed the House or been signed by the president. It is therefore not yet law. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2025

About this sentence:

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

I think that this sentence should be removed for now (until the end of Trump's second term) because most scholarly rankings do not give presidents who served nonconsecutive terms multiple rankings (Grover Cleveland was only ranked once).

AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No, per Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #54. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Extreme Bias In Introduction

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.

---

Not mentioning that Trump is a serial felon alongside mentioning that he is a businessman and President is extremely biased. This is by far the most important fact about him. 66.42.19.60 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not actually, and this has been discussed ad nauseam. — Czello ^(music) 21:56, 28 May 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.