Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 201

Archive 195

←

Archive 199

Archive 200

Archive 201

Archive 202

Archive 203

→

Archive 205

Google Trends for Trumpism and MAGA

I've asked this before. Is it possible for the lead's final paragraph wording to be changed to MAGA movement? Wikipedia appears to defend the use of the term Trumpism, as this article does. Google Trends shows quite the opposite. The blue line for Trumpism is nearly flat. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I don’t think this is the proper forum to whine about Trump policies. NW Cracker (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

What? That's kinda funny actually, but I don't see what it has to do with the article here. Just a joke, maybe. BeProper (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I would be bold and fix this but what to do about this? <!-- DO NOT EXPAND on Trumpism without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item 68. --> -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

As ErnestK pointed out, the article doesn't mention MAGA — MOS:LEADNO applies (Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The three cited sources that do aren't talking about the Trumpism/MAGA movement. Business Insider mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an an article about Trump's actions/nonaction while the "MAGA mob" was attacking Congress. Reuters also mentions MAGA once, in the headline of an article about Trump appointing only "MAGA loyalists" in his second term. The third cite, a 2021 Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias, is one of seven sources for this sentence: His political base has been compared to a cult of personality which doesn't add a label to the cultlike behavior. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, it's Trump-branding of a term first used by Reagan (LMAGA doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). See the RfC of another Trump brand. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just Wikipedia acting smarter-than-thou. Reagan had no monopoly on MAGA, nor did the American colonists have a monopoly on Tea Party. Your argument escapes me—citation of three sources that don't mention Trumpism. Sort of like this article with the sum total of information amounting to this prose: "Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism."
• WP:COMMONNAME ought to prevail here: "Wikipedia...generally prefers the name that is most commonly used..." -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, not for text in the body of the article. And the appropriate comparison would be between "MAGA movement" and "Trumpism" (Google Trends), not between "MAGA" and "Trumpism." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Kinda the same as "Hitlerism" and "Nazism", they were essentially the same thing but had 2 different names, over time "Nazism" became the most common and "Hitlerism" is now rare. MilaKuliž (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

MAGA is much more neutral than trumpism. MAGA can be seen as good or bad but trumpism sounds only bad. 100.16.162.233 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

SusanLesch, "Trumpism" is the longstanding content. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. It's up to you to establish a consensus for the change. Your revert is in violation of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. BTW, I wasn't involved in the Trumpism/MAGA discussion and don't care one way or the other; my objection is based on the sources in the article. Google trends are not a reliable source. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, per WP:CALC, I asked on WP:RSN because my use of Google Trends appears to be a simple case of "Routine calculation."-SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for the difference between Trumpism and MAGA as not being identical terms; they have separate articles on Wikipedia. This could be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, MAGA is appearing in the lede without support in the main body. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, reverted because you found my edit to be a BRD violation. WP:RSN gave excellent advice to pursue this on the talk page. Choosing not to at this time. The Trumpism article failed verification for the name Trumpism and the article's equation with MAGA. (ErnestKrause was working on the wording at this writing.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

MAGA is a political slogan. Trumpism is the political ideology. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but there is a difference. I would support keeping it as is. BootsED (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to find any reasonable source for what is Trumpism. (Pulitzer-winner Carlos Lozada doesn't mention it in What Were We Thinking: A Brief Intellectual History of the Trump Era. Jon Sopel of the BBC makes fun of it: "But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.")

• Google AI seems to think Wikipedia is the best source.
• Wikipedia cites books and articles that don't even mention it.
• This article name checks it twice, with a comment to not expand on the idea.!-- DO NOT EXPAND on Trumpism without prior consensus; see [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item 68. -->

Does anyone else begin to think we're caught in WP:SELF self reference? Well-meaning editors compiled their thoughts and fears here without foundation. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My bad, Lozada mentions it but it's not in the index. He says on the right are "captive minds seeking to retrofit Trumpism into something approaching a coherent ideology." -SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Oxford University Press has announced a book coming out at the end of this year: The Trajectory of Trumpism: Talking about Racism, Fascism, Civil War, and Beyond, by Sanford F. Schram (2025). ErnestKrause (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying that because of this book, by the "end of this year" Trumpism will be a coherent ideology? Meanwhile back to the present state of affairs, I removed an extraneous reference to General Milley from Trumpism. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I like the word ideology. MAGA is a movement, Trumpism is an ideology. They are closely related but not the same thing. Just a passing thought. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2025

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.

---

President Trump is our current president. 2600:1000:B143:8AA:60F9:52DC:A017:CD32 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Challenged due to Current consenus item #70. The first lead pargraph should not be changed without prior consensus. Plus, it already says "is" before "the 47th". GN22 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Plus, it already says "is" before "the 47th". If you can comment about content here, anyone else is entitled to reply. That's the start of a discussion. Per WP:EDITREQ, edit requests are not for discussion. Any comments in a situation like this should be about process only, not content. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:05, 10 July 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.

No mention of Trump's assassination attempt in the lede / Bias?

Ronald Reagan has one. Let me assume: Trump doesn't deserve one, because the shooter 'missed', or 'grazed' his ear? Not very objective, is this place? Trump has had two assassination attempts against him, and the word 'assassination' is only mentioned in the article twice, three if you count the references cited. Every other president that suffered such things, once or twice, the word assassination is mentioned 8-20 times. There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article, like there is on every single other president who suffered an attempt or was assassinated.

And I am looking at all the people 'editing' this article, and those commenting on it; it is mostly the user Mandruss, Catherder and a handful of other people all over this article. That should not be allowed. It is clearly being manipulated by a very distinct group of people. Doing a basic search, the user Mandruss has made 7.5% of the edits to the Donald Trump page in its lifetime of existence. You cannot even load all of his edits, it crashes the server. This needs to be investigated. 2600:8801:B502:8300:804C:8DCB:9490:A5E6 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll start off by saying I don't agree with the IP's bad faith assumptions, here (a user cannot reasonably be condemned for putting a lot of effort into editing an article; really we need more Mandrusses). However, while I do think we need to be a bit ruthless in what we include in the lead, given the unending amount of content that could be there, I do think the assassination attempt(s) should be one that's included. It was extraordinary and a notable part of his presidential campaign; the raised-fist picture alone has become somewhat historic. — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I just think it’s strange that an article can be called ‘unbiased’ when it is almost unanimously edited and controlled by several people. It’s bizarre. I don’t know how anyone can read this article, coming in with an open mind, and not walk away disgusted. EDIT: and to that end, the article fails to be an objective piece of material. Trump was voted into office twice. Last time with the popular vote. Take someone from outer space who has never met Trump before. Someone from an island maybe. Force them to read this article and the only thing they can take away is utter disgust. Clearly this article is missing *something*, or 77 million people are insanely low information voters! Briefly moving through this article (more so the works cited), of these citations are dozens of articles designed to be hit pieces against Donald Trump without proper citation themselves (anonymous sources) or with a complete lack of evidence, just blanket statements. A statement person A made about Donald Trump is not evidence that he was aware how his business benefited from his own policies. How are people’s opinions of and or random statements made to journalists about Donald Trump being cited in an article about his life? I can point out more specifics right now but it’s late. This is my first time ever reading this article, and it gave me a very bad taste in my mouth. I then looked and did a brief overview of the edit history and saw that 5-10 users have committed over 50% of the total edits to the article. You don’t need to be a lover of statistics to understand something is amiss here. 2600:8801:B502:8300:24C7:1950:810D:4D13 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Look, you may have some points, and I can agree with you on a couple of your grievances. But on Wikipedia, the best way to propagate change is not by complaining about the existing content of the article, but rather by making legitimate, detailed suggestions on how the article could be improved (and why), then letting other editors give their thoughts about your proposals and try to build consensus for change. I recommend getting familiar with Wikipedia's content guidelines and determining how this article can be improved with regard to said guidelines. MilaKuliž (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

IP has a point 100.16.162.233 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Czello, there have been numerous discussions (starting with Archive 172) on how to mention the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida, and the Donald Trump raised-fist photographs in Trump's main bio. The longstanding consensus is to not mention it/them in the lead. If you want to propose changing the consensus, doing so in your response to someone posting bad faith assumptions doesn't appear to be productive. The IP's response to your comment confirmed that. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I had hoped the IP would drop the "bias" arguments in order to focus on the more useful topic that they ultimately started, which is why I chose to voice my support while calling out the ABF. — Czello ^(music) 12:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reluctant to defend myself since I shouldn't need to. The fact is that most of my edits are of the nature of this, this, and this. I am not a major contributor of new content at this article. Statistics lie if you don't know how to interpret them. It also doesn't help that you have very little knowledge of the situation you're talking about (regarding my editing); i.e., you are speaking from a position of ignorance, not a good look. Know what you don't know, and act accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Statistics lie if you don't know how to interpret them, especially when someone says that you made 7.5% of the edits. By authorship, it was 5.9% as of 12 seconds ago. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We do not include it as it is bloated already. No it is not biased as the lede is only a summary, It is mentioned in the body, so we not concealing it. But the constant assumptions of bad faith lead me to assume this violates wp:rightgreatwrongs and it is not a genuine call for NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

A minor footnote in Donald's biography with no lasting impact does not deserve a mention on the lead, and probably not in the main article either. There are much more memorable crimes and blunders by Donald to cover on the lead. Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan has one. He also had an operation in which

the rib cage was opened and the president's heart and lungs were examined. About two quarts of bloody fluid were drained from the left side of the chest, where they had collected between the lung and the lining of the chest cavity. The president also received a transfusion of about 2 1/2 quarts of blood. ... O'Leary said the bullet had not struck the heart or any major blood vessels with the chest. It entered the chest below the left arm, traveled slightly downward and struck the seventh rib, then ricocheted into the chest, traveling about three inches through the lower lobe of the left lung. All the bleeding appeared to be caused by the wound made in the lung tissue, O'Leary said. He said the bullet, severely distorted by its collision with the rib, had been removed from inside the chest.

Trump's injury was treated with a Band-Aid, and the medical report on his injury and treatment wasn't released.

There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article: oh yes, there is, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, linked inline in the second to last paragraph of Donald Trump#2024 presidential election. Happy reading! Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the level of injury that is significant, but the attempt itself. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The assassination attempt should be mentioned in the lede. It got a lot of coverage in the sources and was a notable part of his election campaign.13:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC) TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. BeProper (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

was a notable part of his election campaign — it's mentioned in the lead of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign: Trump also survived a minor injury in an assassination attempt. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the article for Theodore Roosevelt and the assassination attempt on him isn't mentioned either, and that was a more impressive episode than Trump's. I no longer think that the assassination attempt should be mentioned in the lede.

However, a potential issue is that this is the extent of the coverage the assassination attempt has received in the article:

On July 13, 2024, Trump was shot in the ear in an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler Township, Pennsylvania. Two days later, the 2024 Republican National Convention nominated him as their presidential candidate, with Senator JD Vance as his running mate. In September, he was targeted but unharmed in an assassination attempt in Florida.

It's the second to last paragraph in the 2024 presidential election section. Does it need more prominence in the body of the article, perhaps its own subheading? Something to think about. I have no strong feelings either way. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, how much more information are we planning on adding? Do we really need a whole subsection (3+ paragraphs) about the assassination attempt, considering he only sustained a minor injury? I've heard that it did have some effect on the 2024 election, but that can be discussed in the "2024 presidential election" section. MilaKuliž (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that as well. I guess we just have to live with it, my friend. I tried to take a stand like you, and then they pulled out a whole playbook to get me banned. Thankfully, I made a "peace treaty" with them, so I think I'm safe, but I'm not supposed to make edits or comments on pages relating to the United States anymore. Hopefully, they don't get mad at me for putting this one up. It's very unfortunate, and I wish you the best. BeProper (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I do have to say I'm in support of people like Mandruss, as long as they keep things neutral. BeProper (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Me too. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also no 'attempted assassination of Donald Trump' sub-article on the main article, like there is on every single other president who suffered an attempt or was assassinated. - Maybe the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania has what you're looking for? MilaKuliž (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm probably about to say a very unpopular opinion - but while assassination attempts are very common in some parts of the world... in the western/developed world (including the US) they're very uncommon. I feel like it should not cause any issues to form a sentence like During the 2024 presidential campaign, he was the target of two assassination attempts in Pennsylvania and Florida or similar, with links as appropriate. The targeted assassination of a specific individual is rare in the US - even though political assassinations may be more common, they're usually not against a specific individual so much as they were the easiest to target to make the message clear. But in any case, I would appreciate anyone here making a valid argument against addint that short sentence, of less than 20 words, to the lead - since it is clearly a very important aspect of his life. Or are we saying that having attempts made to take your life is not important for someone's life? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. The assassination attempt(s) appeared to have some effect on the 2024 election, at least from what I've heard from various news sources. Other articles about prominent Western politicians who have suffered assassination attempts mention them in the lead, from what I've seen. So I don't think there should be a problem with adding that sentence. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt is a famous example where the assassination attempt is not mentioned in the lede. It does have its own subsection however, and I suggested that as a compromise/alternative for this article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a separate issue, needs to go into a separate discussion. Both events are mentioned in one sentence each, and we have a number of editors who don't like short sections with individual headings. I, for one, would oppose adding more material about the events. The inline links to the two "attempted assassination" articles suffices. We've had a number of discussions about how much material to add to the body, starting with this one and this one. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

since it is clearly a very important aspect of his life. Is it, though, i.e., are there reliable sources supporting your assertion? The shooting in Butler, PA, doesn't seem to have affected Trump's campaign and campaign rhetoric other than that he immediately monetized it; his reaction to the Florida event was to blame Biden and Harris and "far-left lunatics". Whether either event affected the vote is unclear. Re they're usually not against a specific individual so much as they were the easiest to target to make the message clear: applies here. The Butler shooter's message is unclear, but his list of targets included Biden, too. Trump was the one who visited the area where the shooter lived. The shooting of Reagan, who almost died from his injuries, is mentioned in the lead with six words in a long sentence about other stuff ("Reagan also survived an assassination attempt, fought public-sector labor unions, expanded the war on drugs, and was slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic"). The lead in Gerald Ford's article doesn't mention the two assassination attempts against him, although two would-be assassins with handguns shot at him from up close. In one case the gun didn't fire, in the second one the shot missed because a bystander interfered. Of course, Ford didn't sell fight-fight-fight or assassination-themed merch, so there's that. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• This article is about Donald Trump. DJT was not behind the assassination attempt. Given the number of actions he has taken that will stand the test of time, doesn't make sense to me to include something in the lead that happened to him which doesn't appear to have any long term consequence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Things a person has done vs things that have happened to them is a meaningless distinction. I support a short inclusion; we can workshop EK's proposal. Riposte97 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, "Things a person has done vs things that have happened to them is a meaningless distinction", but you are ignoring the actual point of O3000's comment. The assassination attempt "doesn't appear to have any long term consequence". He didn't suffer massive injury or have his campaign derailed. Things continued on for him much as before. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• The current summary in the election section of the shooting is very understated making it difficult to add into the lede. The following sentence if added from the main article for the shooting would make this Trump article in the election section more adequate and easier to summarize in the lede: "The shooting led to widespread sympathy for Trump on social media, and public figures across the political spectrum both domestically and internationally urged a decrease in tensions, condemning the assassination attempt.". ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Off topic, WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Widespread sympathy? Not how I remember it. The only people who had sympathy for him were already his supporters. The most the rest of us did was to say that we condemned the violence. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe here, but on social media Democrats have been writing things like "I wish he hadn't survived". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.222.177 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  One can believe that the attack was wrong and still wish that Trump had died. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  You are a very contradictory user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.39.24 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good idea also. BandanrIkhBuhsher (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Mahathir Mohamad's 2025 remarks on Trump: Consideration for inclusion

In May 2025, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, nearing his 100th birthday, made critical public remarks about President Trump’s policies in an AFP interview. Dr Mahathir, a veteran Asian leader with decades of influence, accused Trump of “living in an old world” and warned that his tariff strategies could backfire domestically. He also criticized Trump’s rhetoric (such as MAGA), immigration cuts, and ideas like taking over Greenland or the Panama Canal, saying these policies would not benefit the United States.

As Mahathir is one of the few remaining post-colonial leaders from the 20th century and still holds symbolic influence across Asia, his comments may be a valuable addition to either the Second presidency (2025–present) or Assessments section.

Would there be consensus on including a summary of these remarks to reflect non-Western perspectives on Trump’s 2025 administration, particularly from a statesman who has had previous interactions with US presidents? 218.208.8.68 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/nearing-100-malaysian-ex-pm-mahathir-blasts-old-world-trump 218.208.8.68 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe on Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration? Though I'm not sure on that one either, since Mahathir is a former Prime Minister, so it might not be due. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I see it's mentioned at Mahathir Mohamad#Post-second term premiership (2020–present). I don't see how one man's opinion, even a widely respected one, could be fitted into this long biography. The only mention of international opinions in this article is this sentence in Donald Trump#Public image about polling of the public: In Trump's first term, from 2017 to 2020, international approval ratings of U.S. leadership dropped from about 22 percent in a Gallup poll of 134 countries to just 16 percent—lower than China's Xi Jinping and Russia's Vladimir Putin—in a Pew Research poll of 13 countries. There doesn't seem to be anything in the linked subarticles, either. After Trump leaves office, maybe we'll have enough RS for an article "International leaders' opinion on Donald Trump" or something along those lines. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, this is one world leader, why is his view so significant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"...deportations of immigrants..."

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.

---

"...deportations of immigrants...". Trump deports, rightly, only illegal immigrants (including criminals), not all immigrants. I'm sure there are some far-left trolls who think Trump is deporting all the immigrants at random. 151.46.13.207 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Example: ("During the first 100 days of President Donald J. Trump's second term, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested 66,463 illegal aliens and removed 65,682 aliens, including criminals who threaten public safety and national security. Three in four arrests were criminal illegal aliens, putting the worst first.")

That is a wp:primary source, thus cannot be used for statements of fact. Also read wp:v, it does not say "deported only illegal immigrants". Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You leftists have narrowed down all the sources available on this website to just a few, your favorites; it is impossible to list any more reliable sources beyond this handful.

A handfull? With that lack of good faith, I am out of here with a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 13 July 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.

Rapist

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.

---

why isn't the description in the opening paragraph omitting rapist. Other rapists have it, why not him? Domestiques (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

From the article: "He was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered to pay $5 million in one case." That's a civil matter. He has not been convicted of rape in the criminal justice system. And reliable sources do not refer to him as a rapist, at least not in sufficient numbers to justify calling him a rapist in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:13, 14 July 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.

Consistent removal of lawsuits results from article, when the initiation of the law suit is in the article

There appears to be a policy among the editors of this page to support the inclusion of lawsuits initiated against involving Donald Trump, but then to exclude the results of the lawsuits once they become available. That sounds inconsistent for Wikipedia editors in general and is place here on the Talk page for discussion. These are the last three or four instances which have been reverted on the main page for lawsuit results which have been published by RS; all are currently excluded from the article:

(1) In January 2025, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle the 2021 lawsuit filed by Trump over his suspension. Reverted: .

(2) Though many lawyers thought ABC would win the suit due to the high legal bar for defamation of public figures, after Trump was elected president a second time, ABC settled and paid $15 to the Trump presidential library, $1 million in legal fees, and gave an apology. Reverted: .

(3) In July 2025, Paramount parent company to 60 Minutes agreed to pay Trump $16 million USD for its Kamala Harris story which apparently published inaccurate information about Trump. Added: July 2, 2025. reverted here

(4) In June 2025, the Supreme Court supported Trump in many of his expansive Executive Orders in a ruling recorded by Ruth Marcus (journalist) in the New Yorker titled, "The Supreme Court Sides with Trump Against the Judiciary". Reverted: .

It appears to be odd that these edits are being kept out of the article by reverts from other editors. Example (1) has Trump winning an award to $25 million USD, example (2) has Trump winning $15 million USD, example (3) has Trump winning $16 million USD; that's a total approaching $50 million USD, which is difficult to say is not notable. All of these edits are supported by multiple RS. Opening this thread for editor opinions and comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a president is essentially extorting money from media corporations is definitely worth pointing out. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Misleading heading. lawsuits initiated against Trump: the first three you cite were initiated by Trump, and none of the four is mentioned in this article. Donald Trump#Early actions, 2025–present mentions Trump's executive orders and the lawsuits at summary-level per consensus #37. The individual lawsuits you cited here are mentioned at Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump, the lawsuit against Meta in the subsection Lawsuits over social media ban, against ABC News in Lawsuits filed by Trump, and against CBS News in Lawsuit against CBS for harming Trump's electoral chances.

There's a difference between people fighting imperial edicts, aka unconstitutional executive orders, in court and Trump's nuisance lawsuits. Now, as president with his henchminions in charge at the FTC and FCC, he is holding mergers and licenses hostage for ransom. The corporations that own ABC and CBS preferred to pay the ransom, i.e., settle the cases with the teensy fig leaf that the money is going not to Trump but to the nonprofit that will build his presidential library. winning an award: No, Trump didn't, in any of the cases. That would have required verdicts by judge or jury on the merits of the case.

Re 3. The only inaccurate information is your text, which was reverted here: In July 2025, Paramount parent company to 60 Minutes agreed to pay Trump $16 million USD for its Kamala Harris story which apparently published inaccurate information about Trump. This case, unlike the one against ABC, wasn't about alleged defamation. Trump went forum shopping and sued under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. It's a statute meant to protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive business practices.

Re 4. In June, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump's executive orders can take effect while the cases challenging their "constitutional overreach" make their way through the lower courts. The case in front of them was about Trump's EO declaring birthright citizenship invalid whenever he wants. They haven't ruled on the merits of any of the cases. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Added bold emphasis to none of the four are mentioned in this article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The section title appears correct; I've updated one word in the first sentence under the title for your concern. All the points made there are consistent according to RS and I'm not seeing anything inconsistent. Along with Liliana, it seems the edit should be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not really a usable distinction; the fact that litigants might often decide to settle without requiring a verdict is accept law practice in the USA. Its taken as a win for the person receiving compensation for the lawsuit. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No inaccuracy at all in my statement or in the RS which I'm presenting. The news report of the settlement was carried by all three major networks and numerous newspapers. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There are over 300 lawsuits against Trump, and its not clear how many of them are to be affected by this current Supreme Court ruling on Trump's behalf. Its doubtful that all 300 cases will be affected by the decision, and its doubtful that only the one single decided EO case will be the only one affected. Along with Liliana, it seems the edits should be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Please, don't add comments within my signed comment. With the appropriate reliable source(s), I'd be happy to support adding the info that the president is extorting money from media corporations to the main space. A couple of sources: Forbes/Trump’s War With The Media, NPR/Threat to free speech. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Your content was organized as 4 paragraphs and I originally answered it paragraph by paragraph until you reformatted it. In terms of the article edits, if you can reformat the edits to your preference or Liliana's preference of including the results then you can do it; the 4 edits should be restored to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I made one four-paragraph edit with my signature at the end, based on your initial comment with six paragraphs, dealing with separate issues. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

60 Minutes: Trump claimed that 60 Minutes edited out Harris's "word salad" (his description), shown in a short clip on another CBS program, when they aired the interview on 60 minutes for the purpose of increasing her chances to win and, thus, harming his chances. Nothing to do with apparently publishing inaccurate information about Trump. CBS and other media outlets said such editing is the normal procedure because they have to fit interviews and other content into the available time slot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me if we mention lawsuits we have to also mention the outcomes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We are not mentioning them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

So the question is misleading, as it is not in fact just the results that are being removed? Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Its not consistent to keep the cause of the lawsuit in the article, and not to include the outcome. For example, Trump was banned from websites which resulted in lawsuits in his favor. You appear to be stating the opposite of this as a reason for not including the result of the lawsuit. The results of the lawsuit should be included for these issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, as a lawsuit is a lawsuit. The reason for the lawsuit is separate and may not be relevant. This is why the right question needs to be asked. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Donald_Trump#Social_media mentions that Trump was blocked/temporarily blocked from social media. It also mentions that his ban from Meta platforms lapsed in 2023 and that Twitter reinstated Trump's account in 2022. It does not mention Trump's 2021 lawsuit against Meta, Twitter, and Google for suppressing conservative voices. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be caught in the tangent trap. If inclusion of lawsuit results is inexorably tied to inclusion of lawsuits, the removal of lawsuits should be seriously considered. For the 761st time, there are other Trump articles where this kind of thing could be documented, available to readers who care enough to drill a little deeper (one page link, usually), and not in the way of readers who do not. Use your Trump library. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Mandruss is correct. The lawsuits challenging Trump's actions (and his own litigiousness) are defining elements of his presidencies and part of who he is. I think this article could stand to fold some of the more generic language on various disputes into more precise summaries of legal actions. Almost all of his major disputes have resulted in litigation, after all, and it is a more succinct resource with the benefit of hindsight than some of the scandals and fights that were inserted into the article before they got resolved. Ernest is correct that to simply include the disputes does the reader a disservice, because important context is missing. Riposte97 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could include a three-sentence summary of the lawsuits. Somewhere in that would be a link to the relevant subarticle, for more detail. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Which lawsuits and where? We already have Donald_Trump#Legal_affairs_and_bankruptcies in the "Business career" section, Donald_Trump#Legal_issues in the "Between presidencies" section, mention of the hundreds of lawsuits challenging his executive orders in Donald_Trump#Early_actions,_2025–present, and the general remarks about Trump's lawsuits and access restrictions in Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_press, each one with a "see also", "further", or "main" link to Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

So maybe we need several three-sentence summaries in different parts of the article. I'd start with business-related lawsuits as a prototype. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't take three sentences to say "Meta, ABC, and CBS". -SusanLesch (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

True, but it wouldn't benefit readers to say that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure it would. We don't need to bore our readers with a sentence apiece, and don't need several three-sentence summaries in different parts of the article. This belongs in §Relationship with the press. All of them came out the same: paying millions into Trump's protection racket. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Anything that avoids more current-news play-by-play works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

If anything, this article needs more trimming, not more additions. So only stuff of the utmost importance to his life should be added. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like current consensus item 37 to me. Established six years ago, then largely ignored. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the very old item 37 from 2019. My agreement is with LilianaUwU's comment about the lawsuits that it is worth keeping this information about lawsuit outcomes rather than to revert it or to block it from the article. In the case of the Social media lawsuit, the article already states all of the conditions for the lawsuit that was initiated by Trump but none of the outcome results: "After the January 6 attack, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and correlated with a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation on Twitter." It appears odd for Wikipedia that the outcome of this admitted conduct issue by the Social media platforms, which cost them a multi-million dollar settlement, should be excluded from the Trump article. Because Wikipedia already reports all the conditions for the initiation of the lawsuit, therefore the results of the lawsuit should be included in the article; it is inconsistent to exclude information on Wikipedia for the lawsuit outcome when the conditions for the lawsuit are already covered in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

the very old item 37 from 2019 - Consensuses do not have expiration dates. Thirty-seven is as strong as 71 until it's superseded, amended, or cancelled. it is inconsistent to exclude information on Wikipedia for the lawsuit outcome when the conditions for the lawsuit are already covered in the article - Perhaps so, and you have already been offered an alternative that avoids that problem. You have failed to make the case that detail about lawsuits needs to be in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean... it would be nice to have them in the article. But it's not like it would make a difference, as it's probably mentioned in other Trump-related articles. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

admitted conduct ... which cost them — only if your sources are Trump and the people who replicate his TruthSocial tweets on Facebook, X, and other social media. Meta: This Guardian article explains why Zuckerberg settled the lawsuit: The president reportedly said the lawsuit had to be dealt with before Zuckerberg could be "brought into the tent". (Translation: Nice business you got here, be a shame if something happened to it?) He also sued Twitter and YouTube/Google. He lost the case against Twitter (same Guardian source). He dropped his appeal after Musk paid him $10 million. The case against YouTube/Google was put on hold, and now the thumb screws have been applied and are being tightened: Lawyers for President Trump and Pichai have begun "productive discussions" about the next steps of the case against YouTube, "with additional discussions anticipated in the near future," according to briefs filed in a San Francisco federal court shortly after Memorial Day that appear to have escaped public notice. The parties have asked the judge to give them until September 2 to come to an agreement on a path forward. Trump's efforts to suppress objective press reporting of his actions (AP, ABC, CBS) and extorting private corporations (Meta, possibly X/Twitter) should eventually be summarized in Donald Trump#Second presidency (2025–present). IMO, it's still a developing story, so WP:NOTNEWS. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to make little sense not to follow Wikipedia's guidelines for being consistent about starting edits and then not completing them. I've given four examples of reported conditions for different lawsuits which have emerged and which are already included in the article by others editors, however, now that the results are known for those different lawsuits then these results are being selectively withheld from inclusion in the article. If it is a major consternation to include the one sentence edits which complete these already included edits, then you can combine them into one sentence as suggested by another editor in the discussion above to include in the Trump article here. I'm still agreeing with Liliana above that it really does not hurt Wikipedia to include this information; its now up to $50 million dollars in lawsuit settlements which seems notable. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning the context, claims, allegations, and results of multiple lawsuits is much too detailed for a summary-level overview on this page. The current presentation of this information works best and readers can go to a sub-article if they want more information about them. BootsED (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Linking Iranian external operations

I don't see what is wrong linking this article to this one, as it showes in very clear way that assassinations attempts on Trump (and other government officials in this matter) are directly connected to Iran.

This also give an answer to your question Space4Time3Continuum2x on "relevance for Trump bio?" an assassination attempt has everything to do with Trump's bio. BasselHarfouch (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ALSO: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. The article, basically a list of (proven and alleged) Iranian terror attacks and plots all over the world, is of little relevance to Trump's biography. It includes info on attempted attacks on Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, whose Secret Service protection Trump nevertheless removed soon after taking office, and an unreliable source claiming to have been hired to plot an attack on Trump. If there is an attempt, it will be mentioned in the article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess the next thing you'll say is that him being shot was fake news, but the rest of what you wrote sound logic BasselHarfouch (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2025

In the ==See also== section, please add:

• Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia Ian.hoag (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ian, stop adding irrelevant links to articles. You are just creating work for others. Sheesh! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2025

Put “convicted felon” at the BEGINNING of his biography 2601:646:897E:3D10:A58C:BC9A:7E40:9780 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Grammar of lead sentence

@Space4Time3Continuum2x

Many of his administration's actions—including intimidation of political opponents and civil society, deportations of immigrants, and extensive use of executive orders—have drawn over 300 lawsuits challenging their legality.

The sentence as written implies that many of his individual actions have drawn over 300 lawsuits, rather than drawing over 300 lawsuits collectively.

I think the more elegant way to phrase it is to just cut "over 300", but it could also be rewritten as "His administration has faced over 300 lawsuits challenging the legality of actions such as intimidation of political opponents and civil society, deportations of immigrants, and the extensive use of executive orders." Or we could throw the word collectively in. satkara❈talk 14:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You are right about the meaning, but removing the number wasn't the fix. I clicked "Publish" about the same time I realized what you were referring to, and, since the revert had already put "over 300" back in the sentence, I edited out "Many of". Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that wording works too. satkara❈talk 15:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Satkara: The current version of the main body of the article discusses this in the section titled: "Early actions, 2025–present", with 2 citations. I've brought up the question of expanding on the 300 lawsuits at least a little bit in one of the threads above this one with the title "Consistent removal of lawsuit results", which might have some further information for your question about the lede here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause I agree with your point - I think Trump v CASA is especially notable - but also agree with @Mandruss that results would bloat the article. I'll think on it some more and respond to that thread if I have any ideas.

As far as the lead goes I think, relatedly, that "300" isn't notable to mention, because anyone can file a lawsuit and it doesn't mean that they're likely to win. But I'm neutral on it and the sentence is grammatically fine now. satkara❈talk 15:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm likely to support you on the Trump v CASA matter for adding something. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It's information that, in addition to Trump v. CASA, ought to be added to Supreme Court of the United States under "Criticism and controversies". For this page, it's a detail that doesn't change the fact that 300+ lawsuits continue to make their way through the lower counts. The universal injunctions issued in lower courts prevented Trump from taking potentially unconstitutional and unlawful actions against people anywhere in the country. Trump v. Casa says, nope, the injunction affects only the plaintiffs in the case before the lower court that issued the injunction. If Trump takes the same potentially unconstitutional actions against other people, well, they will need to sue, too, never mind, e.g., the 14th Amendment. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think the lead is fine. It's just the connotation of mentioning 300 lawsuits without any elaboration on how many he ultimately wins/loses. If at some point that statistic emerges, I think that could be included as a summary. satkara❈talk 18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Satkara: It still looks like the article would benefit from adding a least a little more about Trump v. CASA in the main body of the article, in the "Early actions: present-2025" section. There are edited parts of the some sections of "Political practice" at the bottom of the Trump article which go to 4, 5, and 6 sentences long in details which are much less important than this Supreme Court decision. I would still support Satkara to bring in a little more about the Trump v. CASA decision into the main body of the article here. Its a Supreme Court decision after all involving Trump by name. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It used to say collectively. I think I was the one who removed the word as superfluous and unnecessary, and I dislike wasted words. It would be unprecedented for one action to draw over 300 lawsuits or even close to that—the court system lacks the necessary capacity. If there are 300 plaintiffs, you generally have a single class action lawsuit. I was crediting readers with enough intelligence/knowledge to know that. If that was too much credit, the word should be re-added. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem was Many of his administration's actions ... have drawn over 300 lawsuits challenging their legality challenging their legality. That's been fixed. (The alternative was "Many of his administration's actions ... have drawn lawsuits challenging their legality".) I don't think "collectively" is necessary. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I support that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Epstein scandal?!?

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.

---

Epstein scandal NEEDS to be included, i cant remember the last time a topic surrounding Trump has stayed mainstream and THIS divisive JemT2000 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 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.

The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, aka TOBBBA

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Sentiment Analysis

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

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

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

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

Sentiment Analysis for 'Donald Trump':

  Positive: 0.093

  Negative: 0.107

  Neutral: 0.8

  Compound: -0.9997

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

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

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

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

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

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

From NPOV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses; Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Should the inter-presidency get its own spinoff article?

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

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

Category: Jeffrey Epstein

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

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

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

Trumpism mention in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!Vote

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

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

with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2025

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.

---

Change:

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.

To:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is a member of the Republican party, and the 45th (2017 - 2021), and 47th (Incumbent) President of the United States. Matthew P. Brister (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He isn't best known for being a member of the Republican Party, he is best known for being president, thus that should be first (IMO). --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Also why do we also need to say he was 47th? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:37, 23 July 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2025 (2)

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.

---

Doesn’t mention trump is in Epstein files and needs to be added 76.71.76.192 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. - Read the beginning of WP:EDITREQ for proper use of edit request. And this duplicates another discussion already in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion mentioned by User:Mandruss is here. It's also a little more complicated than "in the Epstein files" (and anyways, Elon Musk is not a reliable source, despite the event gaining coverage in the news). --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 21:19, 23 July 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 did Trump win the 2024 presidential election?

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reverted pending agreement on a replacement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your text:

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

Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Sources

Category:21st-century American criminals

This tag should be added for consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your challenge had a rationale of "no consensus".

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

five minutes later (not 8 days;

My mistake, I looked at a different edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  You have a COI. It would be proper for you to recuse. I also recommend you refrain from insulting others in this forum and generally. Sylvan1971 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  I do not have a COI. I have a different perspective, perhaps. Wikipedia allows differing perspectives, and I suspect most experienced editors support them. Please do everyone a favor and drop this line of argument or take it to WP:ANI or WP:AE. As I've already said, my UTP is open for business. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

  It may be a personal political point to you, it’s just a consistency and factual point to me. That’s why I raised it. Sylvan1971 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention, please

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

RFC on lede organization for Donald Trump

Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15, Space4TCatHerder, and ErnestKrause: Given your participation in the discussion that this Rfc spun off from, you are invited to participate. If you have any thoughts you want to share, please feel free to do so.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Separate paragraphs. For comparison, this was the article before paragraph 3 was split. The new paragraph break marks a distinct change in the nature of the content.
  Arguments about "too many paragraphs" have been effectively shot down. A paragraph break does not make the lead longer, unless we're measuring lead length in millimeters of height. The "four paragraph recommended maximum" has been removed from the MoS guideline and even an associated essay, demoting it to retired relic.
  Shorter paragraphs are easier to read and digest than longer paragraphs, as writing experts will tell you. Paragraph breaks are when a reader pauses for two seconds to process and store what they just read. It's poor writing to give them too much before their next pause, since that means not everything gets stored (i.e., incomplete communication and lower reading comprehension). For the lead, I proposed a rule-of-thumb maximum paragraph size of 140 words; paragraph 3 was 159 words before the split. This rule-of-thumb would be good for the body, too, but that's a separate and independent issue. Readability is most important in the lead.
  Now, I recognize that a lot of web guidance on paragraph length would indicate that 140 words is too small a limit. For the general case, I wouldn't disagree with that. I think paragraphs can be longer in printed books and papers, for example.
  (This also goes to the best reading level for this encyclopedia, and there is a strong case to be made that it should be around 8th grade level. This is not to say we should "dumb it down" so 8th graders and Trump supporters can understand it; rather, that we should make it more readable by using shorter sentences and shorter paragraphs, which are not harder to read for more advanced readers, by avoiding extra-fancy words (as if!), etc. This is about good writing, not content—form, not substance.
  Many middle-aged adults read at about 8th grade level, even if they graduated high school; are they an unimportant segment of our audience? Is a college degree a prerequisite for reading and fully absorbing Wikipedia articles? The web guidance is not written for 8th grade level, but for something more like 12th grade level. It was most likely written by people who read at about 16th grade level. This is a whole different discussion, of course, and too large a question for this RfC.)
  You may find this informative: Talk:Donald Trump#Tracking lead size.
  In this comment, not including this paragraph and the preceding paragraph, the average paragraph length is 66 words, and the longest paragraph is 105 words. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Separate paragraphs i.e., keep separate (keep the status quo, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1292223645). The flow is more natural with the current separation of text into paragraphs than it would be if paragraphs 3 and 4 were joined. Having them separate also better reflects the structure of the article. See WP:CREATELEAD: The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. No comment on "140 words". —Alalch E. 23:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• No strong opinion, but keep content Whether or not paragraphs 3 and 4 are combined, my personal opinion is that all of the content in both is relevant to summarizing the body of the article. I don't think it matters very much whether the paragraphs are separated or combined. There are readability arguments from both perspectives that will depend on personal preference, but for what it's worth, plenty of articles have longer paragraphs than 3-4 combined would be in the case of this article, and there is little controversy about it. I think this may be an example of wikipedians splitting hairs on something that 98% of readers don't care about. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This RfC appears to be part of the recent discussion at WP:Lede about the apparent conflict between lede size on the one hand, and number of paragraphs in the lede on the other hand. Someone there pointed out that lede length should have priority over the question of how many paragraphs there should be in the lede under differing circumstances. Therefor the Lede policy of several years has recently been reversed giving preference to Lede length as the more or less decisive issue. Mandruss and others have been a part of that discussion. The question which was not discussed there was why the context should be interpreted as requiring only short paragraphs of 2-3 sentences in length, rather that fully developed paragraphs which are comprehensive in their length and content. Pinging WhatamIdoing in case he might elaborate on any of this editing at WP:Lede. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• I can live with either version. Slight preference for a single paragraph dealing with the first term, including Trump's attempt to overturn the election and the two impeachments (even though the second one took place shortly after he left office). I just moved the sentence about scholars and historians ranking him into the last paragraph with the general remarks. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• To complicate matters, paras 4 and 5 were boldly combined in this edit. Now, combining paras 3 and 4 would create a 200-word paragraph, not a 159-word paragraph. Unless the bold edit is reverted, my normal-weight "separate paragraphs" !vote now becomes a strong !vote, if that makes any difference. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I restored the pre-split version, i.e., third paragraph on first presidency events including the insurrection (145 words), fourth paragraph on events between terms (criminal and civil cases (66 words). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

  how it looks currently loses a lot of meaning when people keep changing it while it's under discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Linking "False or misleading statements by Donald Trump"

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

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

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

Lowest density didn't survive very long. It was just joined by List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. WP links for racist, misogynistic, described as authoritarian, anyone? So many Trump-related articles (I stopped counting at 100 and wasn't close to the end), so many possibilities for Wikilinks to articles whose content and quality the editors on this page can't vouch for. Can't link to the pertinent content in this article we can vouch for because rules but m u s t link everything in the lead that can be linked to another article to that other article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

And here we go. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, I piped a relevant article about Trump in an article about Trump. But meanwhile the lead already links to other Trump-specific articles, so where have we gone too far? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That reasoning is what enables bad stuff to attract more bad stuff. Not all precedent is good precedent. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump helping Israel throughout the Gaza Genocide

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just as I said here, I suggest we mention in his page that Donald Trump has been supporting Israel during its ongoing genocidal war, throughout which it had committed documented war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Spclmnt (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree we need to say any more than they have both supported Israel, we do not ahve to say anything about them supporting genocide. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

One doesn't say "collaborators helped the Nazi Germany during the WW2" but rather "they helped the Nazi Germany carry out the Holocaust." Why does a convention that applies to the the Holocaust doesn't apply to a Palestinian holocaust? Spclmnt (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza genocide page hasn’t said in wiki voice it’s a genocide yet just stating that organisation and scholars have called it a genocide so we also we should not put in wikivoice he’s supporting genocide just say he’s supporting Israel in its war. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2025

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.

---

A lot of the information seems very biased so I question its credibility. Kinda odd that most of the information is negative when I can name a couple positive things about his administration that are not mentioned. A lot of the information is based on left wing conspiracies so it’s kinda odd that left wing news sources are considered credible when they clearly have a bias but right wing and independent sources are somehow not credible. FYI this is why I will never donate to support this website. 173.14.138.229 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 31 July 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.

Epstein Hesitancy

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.

---

Should it be mentioned that Trump is hesitant to release the Epstein files? 166.199.171.25 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2025

mention how he was also in south park 2A00:23C8:CD96:2001:8560:9E8D:1771:B07E (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The most egregious violation of the neutrality on Wikipedia

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.

---

When reviewing past discussion entries, editors argue that the presence of other critical articles somehow neutralizes this one and absolves it of bias. But an honest read from top to bottom reveals that this entry shows it to be one of the most egregious examples of editorial slant imaginable. Considering the tens of millions of people who view the president favorably, this article places Wikipedia squarely in the same category as any other fake-news, editorialized outlet masquerading as neutral.

When a platform that claims objectivity so blatantly curates its content to portray a sitting president in such overwhelmingly negative terms—while hiding behind the illusion of “balance” by pointing to other critical entries—it becomes evident that neutrality is no longer the standard, but the facade.

This isn’t about demanding praise or protection for any leader. It’s about recognizing that public trust is eroded when the gatekeepers of information selectively frame narratives to shape perception. If Wikipedia truly wants to be the people’s encyclopedia, it must hold itself accountable—not to ideology, but to truth. The credibility of the platform depends on its willingness to reflect the full spectrum of reality, not just the parts that fit your demented worldview.

Simply a disgusting and shameful entry. Quinlayen (talk) 10:10, 1 August 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.

Request for Revised and Balanced Lead Section – NPOV and BLP Concerns

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.

---

Aloha editors,

Now that I have already vented my frustration in a previous post, I would like to formally propose a revised lead section for this article, based on concerns about neutrality, proportionality, and balance in the current version. In its current state, the lead leans heavily toward evaluative and critical language and omits several major, well-documented policy actions, reforms, and accomplishments that are standard in biographies of other U.S. presidents.

This appears to be a violation of several Wikipedia content policies, including: WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) – The lead lacks editorial neutrality, especially in its choice of language (“authoritarian,” “backsliding,” “intimidation”) and omission of major policy successes. WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) – Especially for living or recently active figures, Wikipedia requires strict adherence to neutrality and verifiability. The current lead includes subjective framing and controversial claims without clear attribution. WP:DUE (Due and Undue Weight) – The focus is overly skewed toward controversies and legal matters, with almost no mention of widely reported achievements or legislative milestones, which gives an unbalanced impression. WP:LEAD – Per guidelines, the lead should serve as a concise, fair, and proportional summary of the most notable aspects of the subject’s public life.

Below I’ve drafted a proposed alternative that restores balance, follows a neutral tone, includes widely documented and well-sourced policies, and removes unproven causal inferences:

""" Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality serving as the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. Trump is the only U.S. president to have held two non-consecutive terms since Grover Cleveland.

Born and raised in New York City, Trump earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. He took control of his family’s real estate company in 1971, renamed it the Trump Organization, and expanded its operations into commercial real estate, resorts, and branding ventures. From 2004 to 2015, he was the host and executive producer of the reality television series The Apprentice, which elevated his public profile.

Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015 as a political outsider. Running on a platform focused on immigration reform, economic nationalism, deregulation, and a challenge to the political establishment, he won the Republican nomination and defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

During his first term, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, appointed three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and implemented a broad deregulatory agenda. He prioritized energy independence, renegotiated trade agreements such as NAFTA (replaced by the USMCA), and enacted criminal justice reform through the bipartisan First Step Act. His administration launched Operation Warp Speed to accelerate COVID-19 vaccine development and led a significant reduction in U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. His foreign policy initiatives included facilitating the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations.

Trump’s presidency was marked by sharp political division, ongoing investigations, and two impeachments by the House of Representatives—in 2019 and 2021. He was acquitted both times by the Senate. After the 2020 election, which he disputed, a joint session of Congress was disrupted on January 6, 2021, when a group of individuals unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol. Trump condemned the violence that occurred and completed his term on January 20, 2021.

Following his presidency, Trump remained active in political life and announced a bid for re-election. He was elected to a second term in 2024 after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. His second term began with a series of executive actions focused on trade, immigration, civil service reform, and regulatory overhaul. Legal and constitutional debates have emerged around the scope of executive power, and several lawsuits have challenged elements of his administration’s policies. """

Mahalo for your time and consideration, Quinlayen Quinlayen (talk) 10:28, 1 August 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.

Maybe WP:TRUMPRCB is not clear enough. Not only does your content need to be based on reliable sources, but you need to show that by providing links to them. Trust but verify. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Quinlayen: Also note that lead follows body; i.e., anything in the lead must first be supported by cited content in the body. I doubt your proposed lead satisfies that requirement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Trumps Russiagate documents hoax

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0Z2V_VcGw 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russiagate-documents-crossfire-hurricane-binder-2058427#:~:text=Hundreds%20of%20files%20documenting%20the,time%20of%20the%202016%20election. 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You tube is not an RS, so what do you think Newsweek says? Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting consensus on Jan 6 pardons in lead

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

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

Ditto what ErnestKrause said. The body has less than one sentence on the January 6 pardons, it's just a fragment of one sentence and a fragment of another sentence. It must be significantly expanded in the body significantly before it is added to the lead. And the body is already bloated, so the January 6 pardons do not need to be discussed more in the body either. You can find tens of thousands more article on numerous actions that Trump has taken in his second term, but are not in the lead and are not discussed much in the body. Some key examples that have received more coverage from reliable sources than the January 6 pardons, which I mentioned in the RfC, are: "Trump's cancellation of federal grants and scientific research, chainsaw approach under DOGE (the lead mentions job cuts but not spending cuts), deployment of the national guard and marines to quell protests, crackdown on DEI and affirmative action, attacks on institutes of higher education, extensive deregulation (especially on energy and pollution), takeover and dismantling of independent agencies, AI and crypto policies." Bill Williams 18:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)