Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 210

This is an archive of past discussions about Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 205

←

Archive 208

Lead suggestion #1

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Lead edit suggestion #1 from previous edit request. Per Mandruss, seeking consensus.

In the third paragraph:

Before:

He withdrew the U.S. from agreements on climate, trade, and Iran's nuclear program, and started a trade war with China. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, he downplayed its severity, contradicted health officials, and signed the CARES Act.

After:

He withdrew the U.S. from agreements on climate, trade, and Iran's nuclear program, renegotiated NAFTA as the USMCA, started a trade war with China, and brokered the Abraham Accords that established diplomatic normalization between Israel and several Arab states. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, he downplayed its severity, contradicted health officials, initiated Operation Warp Speed to accelerate vaccine development, and signed the CARES Act. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment This discussion and the others you made are not RFCs from what I can tell as they don't have the RFC tag on them or are listed at WP:RFC/A. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 07:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion proposes the following:

First sentence. Add three MOS:EGGs and the clauses "renegotiated NAFTA as the USMCA" and "and brokered the Abraham Accords that established diplomatic normalization between Israel and several Arab states".
Second sentence. Add "initiated Operation Warp Speed to accelerate vaccine development" to the second sentence.

Pretty much every sentence in the lead has been discussed and negotiated, some of them over and over again. You haven't stated any reasons in your Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2026 or these four lead suggestions why you consider these changes necessary based on reliable sources. My track record on this page proves that I'm not afraid of "over and over again" but I'd be a tad more motivated by a little more substance to the proposals. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if the EGGs are good or bad here. The next paragraphs seems to do the same thing with for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. It seems helpful to link to the specific agreements that were withdrawn from.

I'm suggesting adding the other phrases because they seemed like important omissions from the summary of his first term. In reading the existing two sentences you get the impression that his most significant foreign policy was withdrawing from deals, and starting a trade war, and his entire COVID response was downplaying, contradicting and signing the CARES Act. The additions provide a more complete summary without detailing everything like the lead of First presidency of Donald Trump does. Also trying not to disrupt the flow of the sentences, remove anything, or be overly wordy. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are the most significant parts of his first term, at least based on coverage. His decisions to withdrew the U.S. from agreements on climate, trade, and Iran's nuclear program, and the trade war with China defined his entire career and had massive repercussions still affecting his administration today (and still attracting major coverage); in comparison, renegotiating NAFTA, brokering the Abraham Accords, and Operation Warp Speed are trivia with no long-term significance to his personal biography. The one thing I'd suggest is that we might remove the CARES act as overly-specific, but I don't think any of the additions you're suggesting make sense in the lead for his bio - they belong on the article for his term as president but are not significant to him personally. These additions would throw the due weight all out of balance by highlighting things that have, comparatively, no significance to his personal biography in a way that gives them equal weight to major overarching policies or core long-term decisions that defined significant parts of his political career and the trajectory of his biography up to the present day. --Aquillion (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I would disagree with this. Renegotiating NAFTA was a significant initiative of his as he criticized it many times by name during the campaign, and is about on par of significance as withdrawing from TPP (if not more because TPP was never implemented). The Abraham Accords are also quite significant and have had lasting implications for the Middle East into today with Israel's relations with the Arab countries in the current war with Iran, laid the foundation for future normalization, and was widely described as a significant diplomatic development. And Operation Warp Speed was clearly a significant part of his Covid response and had lasting effects given that vaccines helped end the pandemic. I think that adding these facts actually balance the due weight as opposed to unbalancing it. In terms of how they relate to his personal biography, I think that trade policy and Middle East policy are two of his most significant foreign policy areas given how the second term's major points expand on them to include more tariffs and the Iran War, and you can't fully summarize his response to Covid without the vaccines from Warp Speed. MonsterMash51 (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
All three were more branding than substance. The USMCA was similar to NAFTA, and Trump now calls it irrelevant. Abraham Accords: Four majority Muslim countries that had never been involved in wars with Israel, two of them (Morocco, Sudan) in Africa rather than the Middle East, signed agreements to take up diplomatic relations with Israel. AFAIK it's unclear what the current diplomatic status between Bahrain and Israel is, or what effect the current war will have. Operation Warp Speed: I just noticed that it's not mentioned in the body of this article — not in the body, not in the lead. Please, don't add it to the body. Vaccine development was well advanced by the time Trump decided to throw big money at Big Pharma — a deadly pandemic with pretty much every human being a potential customer was a pretty safe bet. The first vaccine to receive FDA approval was developed without Warp Speed funding. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The EGG issue could probably be solved by just extending the text covered by the first link to begin at 'agreements' and the third link to include the 'and'. Riposte97 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of lead

Latest comment: 2 months ago38 comments7 people in discussion

Withdrawn by OP, in favor of separate threads for each separate proposed change. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

The lead is quite long, and here is the fourth paragraph as of now:

“

In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. He was found guilty in 34 counts of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Vice President Kamala Harris, he was sentenced to a discharge, and two federal felony indictments against him for retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election were dismissed without prejudice.

”

I suggest shortening this as follows:

“

In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. In May 2024, he became the first U.S. president convicted of a felony, falsifying business records, which is still on appeal. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Vice President Kamala Harris, he received a no-penalty sentence for the felony.

”

Several unnecessary details are gone, such as the number of counts, and descriptions of dismissed indictments. No need for technical language ("discharge") when we can use plain English ("no-penalty"). The length goes from 78 words down to 58 words. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there should still be wikilinks to the articles about retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that obstruction of the 2020 election is already covered in the ~~second~~ third paragraph. As to classified documents, the raid on Mar-a-Lago was much more publicized than dismissal of the indictment, the latter was relatively insignificant and resulted in (drum roll) no effect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is the shortest paragraph after the first (see Tracking lead size). Length is not a good rationale for trimming that paragraph, although there might be better rationales. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 14:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care about the length of the fourth paragraph, but rather about the total length of the lead. But, yes, there are other rationales too. The number of counts is excessive detail, especially since they were in substance the same thing (reimbursing Cohen). As for dismissed indictments, there wasn't even a trial, it's a nothingburger; if there's eventually a trial then sure let's put it in the lead whether he wins or loses. Keep in mind the surrounding events were much more notable in reliable sources, such as the raid on Maro Lago, all of which is properly covered in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, WP:LONGLEAD says, "too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway....The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." I think the current lead is around 575 words now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not a new debate. The prevailing unwritten consensus, I think, is that Trump is a special case in more ways than one. In my opinion, the content is more important than the length. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be making this proposal regardless of length. But length does become more and more important the more bloated it becomes. It also can make room in the lead for more stuff that's more significant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheer up. It was 657 on 12 Nov 2024— and a lot has happened since then. Is your cup half full, or half empty? ;)

I'll be happy if we can keep it below 600 until the world has moved on from Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you happy with the insinuation in the lead that he dropped charges against himself? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Not my forte, which is why I avoid it most of the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then let's see if anyone can defend the status quo: (1) insinuating that he dropped charges against himself; (2) covering obstruction of 2020 election in both the ~~second~~ third and fourth paragraphs; (3) leaving out raid on Mar-a-Lago even though it got a lot more media coverage and was much more historic than dismissal of indictment. Etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

insinuating that he dropped charges against himself: where? There was a 2.5 month interval between the election and the inauguration. covering obstruction of 2020 election in both the second and fourth paragraphs. I assume you're referring to the third and the fourth paragraph. Yeah, so? The third paragraph mention is about the congressional impeachment, while the fourth paragraph is about the criminal proceedings. The so-called raid on Mar-a-Lago was a search with a search warrant as part of the criminal cases that resulted in the indictments that you want to remove from the lead. It's not the witch hunt Trump/MAGA and Fox News et al. make it out to be. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 21:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

A casual reader would not distinguish between post-election and post-inauguration unless we say one or the other. Yes, I meant the third paragraph, not the second. One mention of the 2020 election dispute seems adequate, the latter is trivial compared to the former, there were 93 U.S. attorneys during the Biden administration, any one of them could file an indictment against Trump. A successful and unprecedented search warrant is more significant than a failed indictment that didn't even go to trial. The object here seems to be to clutter up the lead with the maximum number of allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I still think it's important to mention the retention of classified documents, as this is also unprecedented. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It's important to mention in the article body, I agree, but not the lead. Some aspects are unprecedented, e.g. the raid on Mar-a-Lago, but other aspects have lots of precedent (e.g. see Joe Biden classified documents incident and notice it's not mentioned in the lead of the main BLP about Joe Biden). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Trump stored dozens and dozens of boxes of classified documents in his bathroom, possibly accessible to hundreds of different random people/visitors at Mar-a-Lago. I also believe that Biden turned over the documents he had without making it a big deal, immediately after his attorneys discovered them. Trump very knowingly took and held the many (13,000+ ?) documents, refused to give them back etc., while Biden accidentally retained perhaps dozens of documents? The two scenarios aren't really comparable at all. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The FBI seized 33 boxes at Mar-a-Lago, containing over 11,000 documents. Only 102 of those documents were marked classified. They would fit into less than half a box, probably only about 15–20% of a single box. No one has disputed that Trump could have officially written an order declassifying those documents before removing them from the White House, and no court has decided the question of whether an informal or implied declassification could be plausibly claimed by Trump. You are proving my point by the way; mentioning the dismissed indictment in the lead is meant to suggest guilt and to be accusatory even though dismissal of an indictment actually says nothing about guilt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

You are proving my point by the way; mentioning the dismissed indictment in the lead is meant to suggest guilt and to be accusatory even though dismissal of an indictment actually says nothing about guilt.

That's not the point at all. The comparison you made earlier -- between Biden and Trump -- it just falls flat. It's not about "guilt", but about the unprecedented nature of Trump's actions, and his refusal to return the documents (leading to the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago), etc.

No one has disputed that Trump could have officially written an order declassifying those documents before removing them from the White House ...

What does this have to do with anything in relation to the fourth paragraph of the lead? ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Certainly it is no less relevant than your discussion about "his bathroom". Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean the fact that classified documents were potentially accessible by all sorts of random people visiting Mar-a-Lago? Definitely not a problem at all LOL, because Trump could have signed something to declassify all that stuff, but didn't. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Define "unnecessary" in the context of 34 counts of falsifying business records. I consider 34 felony counts for 34 separate incidents over a period of 11 months worse than e.g. one incident of falsifying business records, as the phrasing you propose appears to suggest. Oppose removal and addition of "which is still on appeal" (unnecessary detail for the lead). Trump and the prosecution are both appealing, outcome unclear. Trump wants the 34 guilty verdicts thrown out; the prosecution is appealing to have the $355 million fine reinstated. I also oppose removing the felony indictments which were a first-ever for both a former president and someone running for president. No objection to replacing "sentencing to a discharge" with "received a non-penalty", but without the Wikilink. No-penalty section is the wording in Donald Trump#Legal issues, and the explanation of the legal term that follows is better than the one in the linked subsection the linked subsection. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording in Wikipedia's article for Indictments against Trump is better, which states: "The six-week-long New York trial lasted April 15–May 30, 2024 and resulted in the conviction of Trump on all 34 charges. However, on January 10, 2025, the judge issued an unconditional discharge." ErnestKrause (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

A count is a distinct, numbered allegation of a specific crime within a formal legal document (indictment/complaint), while a charge is the general accusation of wrongdoing filed against a defendant. There was one charge, which covered 34 counts. The charge is more significant, but I'm glad to compromise by including the number of counts, while also excluding the appeal. In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. In May 2024, he became the first U.S. president convicted of a felony: 34 counts of falsifying business records. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Vice President Kamala Harris, he received a no-penalty sentence for the felony. I would support including the indictments if they had led to a trial, even if he had been acquitted. But an indictment that's dismissed before trial is not lead-worthy, it amounted to nothing, certainly less publicized than the Mar-a-Lago raid. Also, what's wrong with linking to Discharge (sentence)? (It's a whole article, not just a section.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

"Discharge" means different things in different U.S. jurisdictions. Only one sentence in the paragraph deals with its meaning in NY, and I think the definition in this article is better. it amounted to nothing — maybe according to Trump/MAGA/Fox News et.al, not in RS. Discharge without prejudice only means that there were obstacles that there were obstacles to the prosecution at the time and that the DOJ can reopen it, if it so choses, when that obstacle no longer exists, i.e., after Trump's second term has ended. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 21:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble about discharges, here is the proposal without the link that you opposed: In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. In May 2024, he became the first U.S. president convicted of a felony: 34 counts of falsifying business records. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Vice President Kamala Harris, he received a no-penalty sentence for the felony. If and when there's an active federal indictment, then I would be the first to support including it in our lead, but dismissed indictments that never amounted to anything belong in the article body only. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I support this change. I’m not really sure why we're arguing about it. Seems like an obvious improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely not an improvement. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose any of these changes on several grounds. I don't think it's reasonable to add which is still on appeal in the name of shortening it. Your version of the second sentence is barely shorter, and in addition to the obviously contentious addition, you added stuff like changing in 2024 to in May 2024 - if we're at the point of trying to trim off just a few characters, was the month so important that other things had to be removed to make room for it? But more generally I think the previous version was obviously better; these are details that received massive coverage and played a major role in what makes him unique. More generally I think that there's a common problem with people combining significant content changes with attempts to shorten things, which I strenuously oppose. You started this discussion talking about shortening the lead, yet above, you suddenly raised a concern about what you see as an insinuation in the lead that he dropped charges against himself; I don't agree with your reading, but that ought to be raised separately. More generally I don't think that the length of the lead is particularly extreme for a major US politician; the very first sentence of WP:LONGLEAD says The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article. This is an incredibly complex article simply because there are so many individual points which need to be covered in a major politician's bio, which cannot be reasonably summarized together due to touching on different aspects. If we look at comparable articles to get a sense of what the appropriate lead for a subject of this complexity is, the lead is actually shorter than the length of Barack Obama or Richard Nixon, much shorter than Bill Clinton's, and roughly comparable to Joe Biden, Ronald Reagan, and Hillary Clinton. Among recent presidents, only George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford are significantly shorter, and they were one-term presidents whose terms were comparatively uneventful. --Aquillion (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)


Clinton, B	743
Eisenhower	715
Nixon	656
Obama	635
Bush43	588
Trump	568
Kennedy	567
Johnson, L	557
Clinton, H	556
Biden	549
Reagan	536
Truman	528
Roosevelt, F	518
Bush41	486
Ford	473
Carter	384

―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, it would be better to focus on the 22 featured biographies of U.S. presidents:

• John Adams 480

• James Madison 520

• James K. Polk 410

• Zachary Taylor 390

• Millard Fillmore 430

• Franklin Pierce 460

• Ulysses S. Grant 580

• Rutherford B. Hayes 440

• James A. Garfield 470

• Chester A. Arthur 380

• Benjamin Harrison 420

• William McKinley 510

• Theodore Roosevelt 590

• Warren G. Harding 450

• Calvin Coolidge 400

• Franklin D. Roosevelt 620

• Harry S. Truman 540

• Dwight D. Eisenhower 530

• John F. Kennedy 570

• Richard Nixon 550

• Ronald Reagan 560 Only four of those 22 have as many words as Trump's lead, and Trump hasn't even started the last quarter of his presidential years yet. Anyway, as I've said, the changes I'm proposing for the fourth paragraph are worthwhile even regardless of any word counts. Dismissed indictments are clutter in the lead, they didn't even result in trials. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps lead length shouldn't have been brought up at all. The first word of your original heading was "Shorten". ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Live and learn. Incidentally, Gemini (AI) did the word counts for me, but spot checking Nixon shows Gemini screwed up. And I cannot get Grok to admit that any Wikipedia biography of a U.S. president has featured status. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Organizational note: As I gather from a cursory look, you're proposing several changes to p4. Consider withdrawing this and opening a separate thread for each, unless they are somehow linked. This thread looks like a misfire, which happens from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Please go ahead and close the section if you think that's appropriate. I think it is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2026 (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.

Lead suggestion #4

Latest comment: 2 months ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Lead edit suggestion #4 from previous edit request. Per Mandruss, seeking consensus.

In the last paragraph

Before:

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

After:

After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history, while public assessments remained polarized along party lines. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(Would amend consensus 54.) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 12:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the Donald Trump#Scholarly rankings sections. The preceding section, Donald Trump#Public image, covers Trump's {{tq|chiefly partisan support: 88 percent among Republicans and 7 percent among Democrats)). Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

For this one, adding the public assessments provides a more complete summary. I noticed that the lead of Joe Biden mentions both scholarly and public assessments. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at the body, not the lead. With the exception of presidents with the lowest (George W. Bush) or highest (Clinton) United States presidential approval ratings, other presidential leads mention only scholarly rankings. If we wanted to base our lead on Biden's, we'd also have to say "unfavorable public assessments" because Trump's highest disapproval average was 62, three points higher than Biden's. Gallup has stopped tracking presidential approval ratings, so Trump's November 2025 disapproval rating of 60 will probably remain the last one ever. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 12:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that "remained polarized along party lines" does accurately reflect what is currently in the body of the article in the Public image section. But we could say "while public assessments *remained unfavorable* but polarized along party lines" to include the fact that is also there that he has never hit 50%. MonsterMash51 (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement. The added material is as prominent in the body as the existing text, and helps a reader understand Trump's political position, including why he was reelected. Riposte97 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I support Snokalok (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Support with Snokalok and Riposte97, as long as the main body is clear on the polarization of the popular vote. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not meaningful; every recent president has had popular assessments split along party lines, and nothing in the coverage indicates that this is actually that unique to Trump, comparatively. It's also incomplete, in the sense that it occludes the fact that Trump's support among the public is also historically on the low side (which is more noteworthy in the sense of being less common, as well as being more of a focus among the sources); if we were going to mention public sentiment we'd also have to indicate that fact. In fact, if we were to summarize polling in the lead, it would make more sense to cover his popularity with just that fact, since it's the most salient and heavily-covered aspect; "team red backs red president, team blue opposes" is more of a dog-bites-man thing. I'd also oppose connecting it to the historical assessment (which makes it read as a rebuttal). --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. It's MOS:OP-ED and possibly MOS:SYNTH. Are there any RS that juxtapose scholarly assessment and public opinion? Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Public opinion of presidents is almost always polarized along party lines. This proposal doesn't say anything unique and simply makes the lead longer. Presidential biographies on Wikipedia really only discuss scholarly opinion or mention public perception if it's widespread. Currently, Trump is negative at roughly 60%, so there is a stronger case for saying his public perception js negative than "split along party lines" considering the existence of "RINO" and Never Trump Republicans. BootsED (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

"About consensus at this article"

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have boldly added some content at the top of the consensus list, collapsed. I believe it fairly reflects an unspoken local consensus lasting about five years. If that's the case, it merely documents local common practice for the benefit of the uninitiated. Please review it and state any objections. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Inclusion of sexual misconduct allegations

Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I propose moving the coverage of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct allegations out of the "Racial and gender views" section and into its own dedicated subsection, under "Personal Life". Lumping civil liability for sexual abuse (such as the E. Jean Carroll verdict) and allegations from numerous women under "gender views" is just wrong. Sexual assault allegations and legal findings of abuse are matters of conduct and legal history. They aint a viewpoint. Keeping them under "views" minimizes the nature of these events and violates WP:DUE. — Longewal (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you have been editing the related sibling article, then you might provide which summary you would suggest for the 4th paragraph of the "Racial and gender views" section and indicate precisely where you would move it in the current biography. Other editors can then figure out if they wish to support you. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

On further scrutiny of the "gender views" section, I suggest we let it stay in its current state as the section rightly covers his views on women, with the exception of the last sentence ("As of 2020, 26 women have publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations"). This sentence doesn't belong as it pertains to Trump's personal sexual conduct.

I propose the addition of the following under "Personal Life" as a sub-section titled "Sexual misconduct allegations"

As of October, 2024, since the 1970s, at least 28 women have accused Donald Trump of various acts of sexual misconduct,^[1] including rape, sexual assault, kissing and groping without consent, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked pageant contestants. In 2023, a federal jury in New York found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, with the presiding judge later clarifying that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape. Several other women have filed lawsuits against Trump, including his former wife Ivana Trump, businesswoman Jill Harth, former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, and campaign staffer Alva Johnson, all of which were later withdrawn or dismissed.

Following Trump's 2024 re-election, and the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that led to the release of the Epstein Files in late-2025 and early 2026, several previously unverified tips regarding alleged misconduct and trafficking involving Trump and Jeffrey Epstein revealed that the FBI had conducted secret investigations into these ties dating back to the 1990s.^[2]^[3] Other files also revealed that the FBI had in fact secretly investigated Epstein-related allegations against Trump.^[4]^[5]

— Longewal (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you stating that you wish to divide the last paragraph out of the current "Race and gender section" and then move it into the new paragraph you have just outlined above for the "Personal life" section? Because it seems like you also want to merge your version with the current Epstein section there as well? Would the current trans-gender material being discussed above on this Talk page also go there? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am saying the above text that describes his alleged sexual misconduct and legal findings of sexual abuse do not belong under "Gender views". They should be categorized under the "Personal life" section. I propose including the text above in a new subsection there. I have no comment on the transgender discussion. — Longewal (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause Any thoughts? How can I get more eyeballs on this proposal? — Longewal (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The last person to mention the "Gender and race views" section was Aquillion up above as a passing comparison in the Iran War section above; possibly you could ask him about this. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me tag him — Longewal (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources

↑ Ferguson, Malcolm (October 31, 2024). "Pageant Queen Shares Horrifying Details of Trump Sexual Assault". The New Republic. Retrieved August 21, 2025. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
↑ Confessore, Nicholas (January 30, 2026). "Feds Release Document of Tips Mentioning Trump and Epstein". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 2, 2026.
↑ "What's inside the latest Epstein files released by the Justice Department". CNN. January 31, 2026. Retrieved February 2, 2026.
↑ Zanona, Melanie (January 31, 2026). "New Epstein files batch reveals new connections with powerful men". NBC News. Retrieved February 1, 2026.
↑ Eder, Steve; Bender, Michael C.; Enrich, David (2026-02-01). "How Trump Appears in the Epstein Files". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-02-25.

@Aquillion: I'm tagging you as per user:ErnestKrause. I propose a structural fix to resolve a WP:DUE issue. Currently, Trump's sexual misconduct allegations including sexual abuse and several misconduct allegations are covered under 'Racial and gender views.' That aint right. His personal life conduct should not be pigeonholed under a section that describes his viewpoints.

I suggest we remove the final sentence regarding sexual misconduct from the 'Racial and gender views' section, and add new subsection under 'Personal life' titled 'Sexual misconduct allegations' with the text I proposed above. — Longewal (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a link to the page in that section. I think there's too much detail in your proposal, however. We could add a mention that "Trump has faced multiple sexual misconduct allegations over his lifespan" and link to the section there. If you want to mention the more "notable" ones we could simply mention the names of the most prominent accusers, but I wouldn't go into play-by-play details of the accusations here. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I tried my best to trim it, but I give you permission to make edits to the proposed text. — Longewal (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to edit the page Donald Trump and other pages including Elon Musk ~2026-20395-48 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:editrequest, what you are asking for is a change in page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. Edit requests are not requests for the right to edit. They are requests for others to perform edits on your behalf. See the above-linked information page. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

this is not how you use edit requests. Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Link into lead

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The lead says, "During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries...." I suggest linking the last two words: "During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries...."

In 2023, there was an RFC about links in the lead, resulting in this link:

travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries → travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries

Subsequently, that link was shortened so that only the words "a travel ban" are now linked, and thus there currently is no link for the words "Muslim-majority countries." I doubt most readers have any idea about the number of Muslim-majority countries, much less their names, so readers would find this wikilink useful. It would also let readers figure out how comprehensive Trump's Muslim ban was.

Consensus item 60 says, "60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023." We are currently not complying with that consensus item, in that the words "Muslim-majority countries" are not linked. It would be better to link those words as now proposed, rather than have a single huge link for the whole phrase "travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries". Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I would use "During his first term", rather than "During his first presidency". GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@User:GoodDay, does that mean you're okay with inserting the link as proposed? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Edited by you. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, I just edited the link, not the "During his first term." Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hence the difflink. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Importance comparison - Part I - Real Estate vs. 2026 Iran War

Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments10 people in discussion

This article has finite space. As stated above, one way to resolve the issue of legacy content taking up outsized space is to put a straight comparison between different issues to editors, and see if our current approach makes sense. Do this enough times, and the article should gradually improve.

The discussion of Trump's real estate transactions contains three subsections, two images, and runs to almost 1000 words.

The discussion of the 2026 Iran War which Trump initiated is less than one paragraph, containing 44 words.

Please indicate whether you believe:

A - attention is skewed too heavily towards real estate;

B - attention is apportioned about right; or

C - attention is skewed too heavily towards the war Riposte97 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I !vote A. At the moment, coverage is skewed far too much towards real estate. To be clear, I do not think that the war should have more coverage than real estate, or even that they should necessarily be equal. Trump's business career was a huge part of his life, after all. However, considering that the 2026 Iran War has already had seismic implications essential to understanding Trump and his political career, I think that analysis should be expanded and real estate reduced proportionately. Riposte97 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Item A. Its good of you to look up the exact size of that old section; its more than a ten to one (10:1) difference in size. Still, the top editors from 7-8 years ago of the Trump page may raise flags about not stirring up ground which has already become settled over the years for the old Real estate section. To most readers who follow newspapers today, then the prevailing issue needs to be the escalating 2026 Iran War and its consequences for the Middle East. I'm supporting Item A for more information about Trump's orders concerning the 2026 Iran War. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

B Trump's real estate career began in 1968. The Iran War began a few weeks ago. Cutting it to beef up the war section strikes me as WP:RECENTISM. We are not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Should the edit request made by MrPaperwings in the separate thread below be given some credence? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

C This war is less than a year old, His real estate goes back decades. This page is about His life, not his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The current two sentences about the initial strike in week one of the 2026 Iran War currently in the biography seems a bit on the light side. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

B. What Muboshgu said. The summary-style real estate section covers 50 years, from collecting rent at Trump Management in 1968 to his last casino & hotel business bankruptcy in 2009, and the golf course business he still owns. Between you and EK, you've started "must reduce in favor of future additions" how many times now? We still have an open discussion on whether to expand the current mention of the "limited combat operations"/war/not-a-war and cutting the "Racial and gender views" section. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

B per Muboshgu et al. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

B, roughly speaking. I've made some cuts to the real-estate section in the past and I wouldn't be totally opposed to more, but it's absolutely a major part of his biography and right now the Iran War simply isn't; we don't know what will happen in the future but every indication is that he's going to just declare victory and end it. Eg. : “[Trump] is getting a little bored with Iran,” the official said. “Not that he regrets it or something — he’s just bored and wants to move on.” A second White House official who was granted anonymity for the same reason said that Trump has begun to “move on” from the conflict and has started shifting conversations and personal focus toward the economy, domestic issues and the upcoming midterm elections. And a bit further down The White House’s public communications have suggested a similar detachment, presenting the conflict less as an ongoing war with human lives at stake and more as a cultural moment that generates online content. I mean that doesn't mean it'll happen, who knows (it still has the potential to become WW3 or to drastically impact his reputation or biography, sure) but right now coverage points more to it being a blip. If it turns out to be more we can expand it then. --Aquillion (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion; Your reasoning is fairly good here and I'd likely support you to shorten the real estate section by a sentence or two. Regarding your comments about Iran and its leaders, then should an exception be made in your approach to recognize that the death of foreign leaders as caused by Trump's military orders should be included. This seems to be an act that Trump will not be able to walk away from. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

B - I'm satisfied with the current balance. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
B - At this point. At some point, his presidency will be the important part of his bio. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
A - Even from an eventualist perspective, the actions of his second presidency will historically outweigh his previous business life, and it's not like there is not a separate article for that period anyway. BasicWriting (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the successor part of his first presidency (2017-2021), Joe Biden isn’t linked to his Wikipedia page. Namnaam (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

He is linked in the Infobox and in the Lede; I've added another link for his first mention in the main body as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. — Response per consensus 74. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 01:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion notice: March 2026 United States federal government shutdown

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a split discussion here to discuss the creation of article March 2026 United States federal government shutdown. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a sentence about how Donald J Trump is the only president to never win an election against a man ~2026-20899-05 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Very bizarre bit of trivia. — Czello ^(music) 07:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. — Response per consensus 74. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Trump's English

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Im not a native english speaker(im from spain) and I dont have much time so sorry for the writing mistakes. I think that there should be a specific title in the article for Trumps education about leanguages. I think it is very important as even though he only speaks American English, his vocabulary seems to be very simple and limited. Without going any further, in its interviews or international level meetings, he uses basic vocabulary. Far different from the rest of occidental leaders that, even though their native leanguage is not english, they use C2(highest european international level of leanguages certification) level. ~2026-17650-29 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Step 1 is for you to produce reliable sources to support such new content, per WP:NPOV. If you don't do that, this discussion will go nowhere. Step 2 is to decide whether it's good practice to address any living person's semi-literacy in their biography article (I would vote no). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the simple language used by Trump has some propagandistic quality, such as his frequent use of so-called "thought-terminating clichés". Certainly some reliable sources must mention this, but I don't have them handy. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Here you have some, they might not be official, however their are a starting point:

https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/11/donald-trump-speaks-fourth-grade-level-factbase-analysis-herbert-hoover-iowa-united-states-president/1024002001/

https://englishlanguagethoughts.com/2017/08/01/just-how-bad-is-donald-trumps-english-putting-him-to-the-test/

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2016/march/speechifying.html

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/trumps-speeches-perfect-tutorials-esl-students/

I dont know ther in the states, but here in spain there is a huge difference among the vocabulary quality of a 12 years child and a 18 adult that is studing at the university, and as i know, trump went the university, im wrong? ~2026-17650-29 (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here are a few relevant sources should anyone want to dig further on the topic of Trump's use of basic vocabulary and his signature rhetorical style:

Political Studies Review: The Readability and Simplicity of Donald Trump's Language (2017)
Journal of Language and Social Psychology: Are U.S. Presidents Becoming Less Rhetorically Complex? Evaluating the Integrative Complexity of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in Historical Context (2022)
Presidential Studies Quarterly: Donald Trump's Words (2025)
Social Sciences Journal: Impact of Trump's Digital Rhetoric on the US Elections: A View from Worldwide Far-Right Populism (2021)
The Atlantic: What Orwell Didn't Anticipate (2024)

The first three links are perhaps the most relevant, but the last two do touch on Trump's use of simple and accessible language. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Cryptic revert

Latest comment: 2 months ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I boldly made this edit earlier today. User:Space4Time3Continuum2x subsequently reverted (while reverting work by other editors too) without any explanation beyond "no consensus." It's normally helpful for a reverting editor to explain why beyond merely "no consensus". In a normal BRD cycle, "The editor reverting you should be specific about their reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page." I assume that Space4 disagrees with most of my edit, because reverting stuff without disagreeing it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Because I cannot try to persuade someone who has not given any reasons, I plan to revert the revert, unless reasons are given. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 23:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much similarity between your first two diffs, so I didn't read further. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

He reverted more than one edit by more than one editor, all at once, without explanation. He also partially reverted himself. Look again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't articulate why without more thought, but that doesn't "feel" right to me. Worthy of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

His blanket revert without explanation also reverted this edit of mine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I made an error in this edit and corrected it in this one. I also inadvertently reverted another editor's expansion of a piped link but they've already reverted it, so there's nothing more I can do about it. What was cryptic about my revert? What happened to "in favor of separate threads for each separate proposed change"? I also just self-reverted "sentenced to a discharge" to "given a no-penalty sentence". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 22:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I have not yet returned to my proposal to remove mention of the two dismissed indictments in the lead. If and when I do, I will start a separate talk page section beforehand. You must know that the stuff you reverted did not remove those dismissals from the lead. If you do not give any reason, then I intend to revert your inappropriate revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I already noticed one problem with your edit, as you changed the text to say "for alleged retention of classified documents and ..."

Trump DID in fact retain classified documents (as supported by RS), nothing about that is merely "alleged". ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If someone is indicted for something, they are always presumed innocent by the legal system. WP:BLPCRIME insists that we respect that principle. Trump pleaded "not guilty" in this case, and we have no option to say that he is actually guilty. There has not been any trial or conviction, because the indictment was dismissed, so we don't know what evidence and arguments Trump might have successfully presented in the case (although I can imagine a few). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The wording you used calls into question whether or not classified documents were retained at all. We know for a fact that classified documents were definitely retained and stored at Mar-a-Lago, this is NOT in dispute. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly IS in dispute. Per the main Wikipedia article on this subject, "On September 14, 2023, Trump was interviewed by Megyn Kelly for SiriusXM. He said: 'I'm allowed to take these documents, classified or not classified. And frankly, when I have them, they become unclassified. People think you have to go through a ritual. You don’t — at least in my opinion, you don't.'" It's a legal issue. No one disputes that Trump had declassification power, but there's a question about whether he had to go through any formal process or ritual to exercise that power. We can't take a position on it, because of the presumption of innocence. We can't say that all of a defendant's legal arguments are wrong, before the case has even been tried in court. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! This quote from Trump that you mentioned, "'I'm allowed to take these documents, classified or not classified ..." proves the point.

It is NOT alleged that he took the documents (the FBI found them at his house!). Additionally, he in fact admits to having done so. What is being disputed is whether those actions were criminal in nature in any way, and I understand about BLP protections and presumption of innocence.

However, the wording in your edit makes it sound like reality is being questioned, that it is "alleged" as to whether or not documents were retained by Trump in the first place.

The wording in your edit needs to clarify that the wrongdoing itself is what has been alleged and is in dispute, rather than the specific actions (e.g., retention of documents that definitely took place) which were proven to have occurred, and admitted to by Trump himself. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If I had proposed saying "alleged retention of documents" then your argument would make more sense. Instead I proposed saying "alleged retention of classified documents." Trump denied the latter allegation, not the former. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Classified documents were found. You can't declassify things with psychic powers, this is bordering on absurdity at this point. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The prosecutor said he had to perform a ritual, he claimed he didn't. So Wikipedia should say Trump was wrong and therefore guilty as sin? Perhaps we should just present the facts instead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should present the facts as described by reliable sources. I never saw a single story by a credible media outlet that talked about the FBI finding "allegedly classified documents", did you?

All of the reliable sources I read from said that classified documents were in fact found stored at Mar-a-Lago. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

My apology — I didn't notice that this large edit was also made by another editor. To your changes:

The addition of "shortly" (shortly after winning): minutes, hours, days? It was two months after the election, and the important part is "After winning the 2024 presidential election".
The addition of "but before taking office": unnecessary detail for the lead. The body of the article and the sources use the date of the sentencing.
Changing and two federal felony indictments against him for retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election were dismissed without prejudice to read and two unrelated federal felony indictments against him were dismissed without prejudice, for alleged retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election. "Unrelated" isn't necessary. Why would anyone think that an adjudicated case on business fraud is related to indictments on retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election? "Alleged": we're not taking a position on it, and neither did the RS we're citing. Trump was indicted for the charges listed in the infobox of Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case), not for "alleged willful retention", "alleged false statements", etc. Definition of indictment: a formal written statement prepared by a prosecuting authority charging a person with a crime and returned by a jury (such as a grand jury) upon finding that sufficient evidence to support it was presented.

I've self-reverted to "In May 2024" and "given a no-penalty sentence". "Of 34 counts" was a typo that I corrected in this edit. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 13:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

English, simple

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Re this edit. Our text (The academy pushed students into sports and taught the imperative of winning) is supported by the sources. Buettner/Craig on sports at NYMA: "All cadets were pushed to play on the school's sports teams". Kranish/Fisher on winning: "Dobias taught his players the line famously attributed to legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi: 'I taught them that winning wasn't everything, it was the only thing.'" Space4TCatHerder 🖖 21:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe the bold editor's main objection was to the style of language used. It isn't formal enough for them. I say that's a snobby attitude that doesn't serve readers. Needless to say, we could go too far in the other direction as well, but I don't think that's the case here. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

NYMA

Mandruss, responding to your ping. This quote following is generally true. Trump attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade. His father enrolled him in the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, from eighth to twelfth grade.^[1] The academy pushed students into sports^[2] and taught the imperative of winning.^[3]

I'll have access to the books again after April 8. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC) SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: I was probably wrong to ping you from that edit summary. We look to sources for facts, not style of language. The bold editor appeared to question the style, not the facts.

I take a lesson from Truman, known for his plain talk. He wouldn't like that edit, either. Formality where it's not needed is just snobbery, or some misguided attempt to make Wikipedia seem more professional, therefore more credible. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Has anyone seen Springsteen live this week? Video on YouTube -SusanLesch (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Springsteen live this week? Probably. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources

↑ Kranish & Fisher 2017, pp. 33, 38, 45.
↑ Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 66.
↑ Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 42.

Psychoanalysis

Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

OP said they were not aware of consensus 39 when they opened this discussion. The local common practice recently outlined at About consensus at this article has not been followed in this case.

This is an involved closure, but my involvement was about process, not content. I have enjoyed watching the debates with a beer and a large bucket of buttered popcorn, but I have no particular opinion about content like this.

Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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

I'd like to put in a new "Pyschoanalysis" sub-section under "9 Rhetoric, behavior, and political practice". Something like:

"Commentators and clinicians have speculated that Donald Trump displays characteristics associated with malignant narcissism, a non-diagnostic term in psychoanalytic theory coined in 1984 by professor Otto Kernberg. In November 2025 Kernberg himself stated, in an interview with Der Spiegel, that in his assessment Trump exhibits defining features of malignant narcissism in his political conduct, including grandiosity, aggression, vindictiveness, and a willingness to disregard moral constraints in order to prevail.^[1] However such claims are contested and are not based on a formal clinical evaluation; the Goldwater Rule states that psychiatrists shall refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and consent."

This seems to be an open secret amongst psychoanalysts - I'm sure I can find other refs if required.

Sadly though I don't have a high enough edit count in Wikipedia to add this... Amble123 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I shall leave it to my colleagues to decide how consensus 39 applies here. By one interpretation, this discussion should be immediately closed. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing 39 ("Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office") to my attention, I should have spotted it. Seems a bit oppressive. Especially as it is a restriction on the Talk page as well as (presumably) the article itself. I also see that mental health is whitewashed out of the 'Health' section, presumably for the same reason. One might think it makes a mockery of having a 'health' section at all...

On the plus side there is an exemption in 39 "This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness." I think this applies as Der Speigel is media and the article relates to his mental health. Also consensus 39 is 5 years old now, Trump is 5 years older (80 in a couple of months time). Amble123 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I also note that the Joe Biden Wikipedia page has a paragraph in the article itself, not just the talk page, about his mental health (quite rightly) and it was there whilst he was president. Amble123 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it is fairly ridiculous that we don't have any mention of his multiple mental health issues in the article. These things are essentially the defining aspects of Donald Trump's personality and actions. I've read plenty of articles where psychologists assess that he has some variety of extreme narcissism, probably psychopathy, certainly ADHD and possibly Autism. So what if they have not personally examined him? He's never going to let any psychologist examine or assess him, so that is basically just a blanket and permanent restriction on Wikipedia reporting on one of the most important questions of our time. Wikipedia commonly publishes opinions from even unqualified individuals about all kinds of things, but we can't publish the clinical opinion of a qualified psychologist about this? Hibernian (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Have you read the discussions that formed consensus 39? They are linked in the list item. If not, please do so. If so, has your argument already been considered and rejected by the consensus of editors? If so, it makes little sense to revisit the issue merely because you might articulate the argument better. See the ArbCom resolution at WP:EDITORTIME. Also see "About consensus at this article", here. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and we cannot include non-clinical diagnoses of medical issues. We can't treat Trump any differently from any other person. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Honestly we should just close this discussion. It's non-actionable within WP guidelines for BLPs notwithstanding Trump specific consensuses. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Close appears appropriate. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources

↑ https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/otto-kernberg-ueber-boesartige-narzissten-es-haette-auch-andere-trumps-geben-koennen-a-41ce39c6-8659-44db-888d-83e683fa3140

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.

Consensus 27: Fix article, or cancel consensus?

Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Article currently violates consensus 27. I can't find that content in the page history, which is why I haven't restored it. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This was the consensus version as of June 5, 2018: In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States, and falsely asserted that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton and her 2008 presidential campaign. The removal on July 8, 2019 of the Clinton clause went unnoticed (the Mueller report had dropped in April) and unmentioned in the editsum. 5,000 lies further on we might as well retire this consensus. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 23:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Someday you can show me how you did that. I couldn't even get either version of WikiBlame to work at all.

Unable to find ref "nyt-drops", so unable to restore the content at this time. Maybe you can work your magic on that one, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 23:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I narrow the search down on the Wayback Machine. In this case, I started with the date of the consensus (June 5, 2018), found Galobtter's update, then searched for the sentence on December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2019. It was present in 2018 but not in 2019. Then went back three months (Sep) — not there, another three months (June) — present. July 31 — nope. Ergo removed in July. End of first July week — yes, end of second week — nope, then check the days. The annoying part is looking up the day in an edit history this long, otherwise easy peasy.

Space4TCatHerder 🖖 23:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. You are now elected High Priest of Article History Searches at Donald Trump. The problem with being good at something is that you tend to be called on to do it a lot. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The cite isn't in the ref list anymore.^[1] Space4TCatHerder 🖖 00:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the content (aggregate diff). As stated, the content may need more birtherism context. That's outside the scope of #27. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The article didn't have the False or misleading statements and conspiracy theories section back then. There was a long paragraph in the former "Racial views" section:

Trump played a leading role in "birther" conspiracy theories that had been circulating since Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.^[270][271] Beginning in March 2011, he publicly questioned Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve as president.^{[272][273][274]} Although the Obama campaign had released a copy of the short-form birth certificate in 2008,^[275] Trump demanded to see the original "long-form" certificate.^[272] He mentioned having sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.^[272] He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.^[276][277] When the White House later released Obama's long-form birth certificate,^[278] Trump took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it checks out."^[279] His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand,^[280] and he has defended his pursuit of the issue when prompted, later saying that his promotion of the conspiracy made him "very popular".^[281] In 2011, he had called for Obama to release his student records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.^[282] He also claimed in his 2011 CPAC speech that Obama's classmates "don't know who he is".^[283] When asked in 2015 whether he believed Obama was born in the United States, he said he did not want to discuss the matter further.^[284][285] In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.^[273] In late 2017, he continued to question the authenticity of the birth certificate in closed-door conversations with advisers.^[286]

Current content in the "False or misleading statements and conspiracy" section:

In 2011, Trump became the leading proponent of the racist "birther" conspiracy theory that Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, was not born in the United States,^[607] and he claimed credit for pressuring the government to publish Obama's birth certificate, which he considered fraudulent.^[608]

Current content in the Racial and gender views section:

In September 2016, he publicly acknowledged Barack Obama's birthplace and falsely claimed that the rumors had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.^[547]

That's three for three: racist, misogynist, and conspiracy theorist. I find it hard to decide which one would be my "preferred" category if we want to keep the content in one place. The current sentence in "racial/gender views" is lacking context for anyone who's not familiar with the backstory or hasn't read the "falsehoods/conspiracy theories" section first. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Off topic meta. See WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website when it was first founded 25 years ago, but instead, the site has been criticized for being left-wing, progressive, liberal propaganda. And after looking at the Abortion, Drug legalization, LGBTQ+ adoption, Illegal immigration in the US, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump articles, I can see why. Buddy731 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

For now, I moved the Obama/Hillary sentence into "falsehoods/conspiracy theories". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 15:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I missed the other content, I guess because I searched for "birtherism" instead of "birther". Looks ok for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there some value to discuss 'cancel consensus' as suggested in the section title? It seems after over 5 years that someone could add a word or two about this option? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed, but please read "About consensus at this article" here. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

References

↑ Haberman, Maggie; Rappeport, Alan (September 16, 2016). "Trump Drops False 'Birther' Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It". The New York Times.

Grammar

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@Mandruss: lol. But I actually think I’m right here. In regular American English, you would say "he was found guilty of manslaughter" not "he was found guilty on manslaughter". Since the crime is the object of the sentence in question, I'd have thought the preposition would follow that structure. Anyone have their school English textbook handy…? Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I think it important to agree with common idiomatic usage in the U.S., and I'm very confident that's what this is. The "34 counts" is what makes the difference. This is what you (we) invariably hear on U.S. newscasts. If the English textbook disagrees, I'll just burn it, problem solved.

~~Anyway, you had two occurrences of "of" within four words, which must violate some rule of good writing.~~ ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 11:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC) Edited after reply 22:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

But I see NYT doing it both ways, so even they can't make up their minds. All I can say is that "convicted on 34 counts" sounds completely natural to my American ear, and "convicted of 34 counts" sounds foreign, as if English is the speaker's second language. Let's flip a coin. Heads I win, tails you lose. Fair? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 12:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

found guilty of 34 counts: verb phrase with complementary prepositional phrase, guilty verdict on 34 counts: compound noun phrase with prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifier. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

A search produced "convicted on all 34 counts", "his sentencing on 34 felony counts", "found guilty of business fraud on all 34 counts", "guilty of 34 felony counts of falsified business records", "guilty of repeatedly and fraudulently falsifying business records", "found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records", "guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records", "first president to be convicted of a crime". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Flogging away: found guilty of having done something, found guilty on 34 counts of having done something. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I feel like for his first presidency, his first inaugural portrait should be added for show. For his second presidency, his second inaugural portrait should be added./ It can be small like 150x. BookerLegend4 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

413 million and/including 60 million

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"He borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely did not repay the loans, and received another $413 million (2018 equivalent, adjusted for inflation) from his father's company" Looking at the source, I am not sure it specifies that the 413 was additional to the 60. It seems the 60 is part of the 413. I don't have access to the other source so can't confirm. I'll update this if to say "He received at least $413 million (2018 equivalent, adjusted for inflation) from his father's company" Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The relevant passages in the New York Times source say:

"It wasn't a great business, it was a good business," [Trump] said [of his father's real estate business], as if Fred Trump ran a chain of laundromats. Yes, he told interviewers, his father was a wonderful mentor, but given the limits of his business, the most he could manage was a $1 million loan, and even that had to be repaid with interest.
Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.
Here is what can be said with certainty: Had Mr. Trump done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500, he would be worth $1.96 billion today. As for that $1 million loan, Fred Trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars, The Times found.
He gave him loan after loan, many never repaid.

IMO, it's not clear whether the loans — repaid or not — were included in "at least $413 million". I changed the sentence to read, He borrowed at least $60 million from his father, did not repay many of the loans, and received $413 million (2018 equivalent, adjusted for inflation) from his father's real estate company. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The second source, which deals mostly with "the Trumps' tax maneuvers", says:

But an investigation by The New York Times has revealed that Donald Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire.
In Mr. Trump’s books and TV shows and on the campaign trail, a central trope of his self-mythology has been that, as he began bulding his own empire, the only financial help he got from his father was a $1 million loan. Not only that: "I had to pay him back with interest." In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show.
By 1987, Donald Trump’s loan debt to his father had grown to at least $11 million. Had Fred Trump simply forgiven the debt, his son would have owed millions in income taxes. ... That December, records show, Fred Trump spent $15.5 million to buy a 7.5 percent stake in Trump Palace ... Four years later, tax returns and financial statements show, Fred Trump sold that stake for just $10,000. The buyer, other documents indicate, was his son. According to tax experts, with Trump Palace condos selling briskly, selling shares worth $15.5 million to your son for a mere sliver of that would constitute a multimillion-dollar gift under I.R.S. rules. But Fred Trump's tax returns show no such gift to Donald Trump. What they do reveal is that he used the transaction to declare an enormous tax write-off. That appears to violate federal tax law that prohibits deducting any loss from the sale or exchange of property between family members. In all, Fred Trump dodged roughly $8 million in gift taxes and $5 million in income taxes on the transaction. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Tweet Feb 15 2025: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law"

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://web.archive.org/web/20250218181125/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-stokes-alarm-view-presidential-power-apparent-napoleon/story?id=118898574

Now, 14 months later, we have seen (afaik many) examples that Trump feels / acts that way (i.a. the sudden East Wing#demolition without review by the National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees federal construction.

I think that in the section Rhetoric, behavior, and political practice there should be a sub-section about his rhetoric and tendency to ignore laws (but I'm no native speaker). ~2026-17771-92 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

We do not need to add more material; this should go in one of the many other articles. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Surprised by no cites in lead

Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Withdrawn by OP. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Usually contentious topics have in-line citations in the lead, so I am surprised there are none on this article. I could go through the body and attribute high quality sources to parts of the lead which may be disputed. Or is there a reason this hasn't been done. Just curious more than anything. Chattenoir (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ledes do not usually have cites, as it is assumed any information there is already in (and cited) the body. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but contentious article leads often do, since they contain information that is frequently challenged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations

I would hazard to guess that a lot of content in this lead has been challenged due to the politically contentious nature of the article (being an article on a current US president) Chattenoir (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

per consensus 58 if you have a specific passage you feel is contentious and needs a citation, feel free to suggest that. we're not going to mass-cite things in general just to make people feel better. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No cites in the lead is the norm for U.S. presidents going back to Hoover (I didn't look any further), with an occasional citation in a few of them. Trump is a subject with so many related pages that content in this top bio is summary-level, and the lead is a summary of this summary-level content. It's already condensed to the point where it's hard to read, and pretty much everything in it has been called "contentious" at one point or another. If someone doesn't want to go through the body and attribute high quality sources to parts of the lead they dispute, they can always come to the Talk page. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that is true that US presidents rarely have any cites in lead.

If the cites were in the lead less people would feel the need to open a talk discussion, of which is a near daily occurrence here. That was my only point in asking this question. Chattenoir (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, it would have no effect. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Que?? Talk discussions about the absence of lead cites happen about four times a year, I'd estimate. I fully support the method we've used here for about five years. If readers want sources they are readily available in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

What? No. You have misunderstood what I meant. I am saying that the presence of cites will allow people to read the citation, and understand the validity of the statement immediately. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations Chattenoir (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand the argument for lead cites. I also understand the argument against them. I choose the latter argument. It's that simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just you said ' Talk discussions about the absence of lead cites happen about four times a year,' which I interpreted to mean that you thought I was saying having citations would reduce the frequency of talk sections about them.

What is the argument against them? I'm not trying to argue with you it's just... I honestly don't know. Chattenoir (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I can tell you what will happen (I have seen it in other articles) "ohh only one cite, then it cannot be in the lede" (folowed by "ohh there are too many cites, remove it"), "Ohh well you need to have all RS say it, for it to be in the lede", and many others. It will stop the quibbles just switch their focus. Your solution will not solve anything, it's just means that more cites (that will be argued over). Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

hmmm, ok. Let's leave this here since I don't want to waste everyone's time with a drawn out discussion about this. Just for the record I disagree since I think lead-cites adds legitimacy to regularly disputed articles. Chattenoir (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2026 (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.

President Trump

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Closing per WP:NOTFORUM. No specific article change proposed, no sources provided. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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 has been committed to bringing international peace by participating in global events. However many have questioned his stand on such occasions and reminding of him of his America first policy. ~2026-23600-96 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I am failing to see what you want to change in our article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2026 (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.

Please improve this article. It shouldn't be formatted as a "hit piece".

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Closing per consensus 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

The article right after describing Donald Trump, his birth, background, and what he did before being president just jumps right into all the "hit pieces" during his presidency, rather than just reporting an unbiased scholarly article on a historic figure. Nobody would believe that an article on Thomas Jefferson or JFK, would jump right to what their controversial topic might me. Not saying those should not be included, and the also don't need to be buried in an article. But it is obvious that the bias of this article on Donald Trump is specifically designed to reinforce a left leaning agenda. This is why Wikipedia is becoming a total joke. Please improve this article. ~2026-22142-41 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2026 (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.

Update needed

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't have edit privileges so I am asking for an update to be made to the article:

Current wording:

As of 2020, 26 women have publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations.

Needs to be updated to align with Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations:

As of October 2024, since the 1970s, at least 28^[1] women have accused Donald Trump of various acts of sexual misconduct, including rape, sex with minors, sexual assault, physical abuse, kissing and groping without consent, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked pageant contestants.

Sources

↑ Ferguson, Malcolm (October 31, 2024). "Pageant Queen Shares Horrifying Details of Trump Sexual Assault". The New Republic. Archived from the original on November 1, 2024. Retrieved August 21, 2025.

— Longewal (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Done! TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Chart re "unprecedented" "dismantlement" of American democracy

Latest comment: 2 months ago45 comments18 people in discussion

The V-Dem Institute said in 2026 that under Trump's presidency, "the speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history".^[1] The institute noted executive overreach undermining the rule of law, suppression and intimidation of media and dissenting voices, loss of legislative constraints, and declining civil rights, equality, and freedom of expression.^[1]

Please read the bolded sentences on p. 33 of the source. Based on the premise that Trump is "dismantling" US democracy, this chart is among the most important graphics that could be included here. Countless reliable sources assert Trump is undermining US democracy; this chart visualizes and quantifies the phenomenon.

The chart was deleted by this edit, with the comment that it is "too deep in the weeds for this biography, which is not specific to his presidencies" . Au contraire! The source's p. 33 bolded intro sentence reads, "Under Trump’s presidency, the level of democracy in the USA has fallen back to the same level as in 1965", consistent with the other sources. The chart's red tinted areas contextualize his presidencies—and their historic effect. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

References

1 2 "Democracy Report 2026 / Unraveling The Democratic Era?" (PDF). V-Dem Institute. March 2026. p. 33 In Focus: Autocratization in the USA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2026.
● Raw data presented at: "Country Graph". V-Dem Institute. March 2026. Archived from the original on 1 March 2026. (Choose "United States of America" and select "Election Democracy Index" and "Liberal Democracy Index".)

Include per the above. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
This is a biography. I am inclined to agree with Mandruss. Riposte97 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Exclude for now - It is in the presidency articles where it belongs. If the current trend continues, I might also support here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Exclude for now, per the above, this is about his presidency, put it there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Omit for now per me. For inclusion in this bio, this kind of thing needs a lot more historical perspective (years more). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Exclude - as the percentage has risen among eligible voter participartion. Again - the USA is not & never was a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
America is both a democracy and a republic. I agree with excluding it for now, but not on the grounds that America isn't a democracy. BootsED (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Never was or is a democracy. But of course, that's another topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
We can probably add this source as a reference for the sentence that discusses this already. Give it two years and if trends continue as they do this will probably deserve an entire sub-section depending on how important it becomes to his legacy. But we can only add this in due time, not before. BootsED (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment re ~WP:Recentism arguments - I understand the ~WP:Recentism concept, but the chart shows a reversion to 1970s-level democracy already in 2017—nine years ago. The "recent" (2025) level shows an intensification to 1960s levels, damage to democracy that is already an inescapable part of his legacy. The chart matches existing content in second paragraph of the section Donald_Trump#Political_practice_and_rhetoric, so: either the chart should be added or that paragraph should, on the same logic, be removed. If you still disagree, I propose adding the chart's caption to the narrative text for the time being. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Include per RCraig09, this is an extremely pertinent infographic to have in the article. I also find the above argument by Mandruss to be pretty wild and invalidating, claiming we should wait "years" before we can understand the impact. Seriously? ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
More accurately, "years" before historians and other experts have gained enough historical perspective to assess the impact in a form accessible to us and readers. What "we" understand is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

My point at 15:51 26 March was that the second paragraph of the section Donald_Trump#Political_practice_and_rhetoric has had less time for "historians and other experts" to render a verdict than the content that the chart shows as of 2017. If that textual content passes the non-Recentism test, so must the chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

This reasoning requires a level of article cohesion that has never existed. It's a terrible idea to link things in this way. Consider that existing content may exist inappropriately. Instead of adding to the problem, we should be working to improve it. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think inclusion of the infographic is an improvement! ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Obviously, even the most cursory Google search shows T's legacy is already proven to damage democracy. We can "improve this article" by including a chart that concisely visualizes the degree to which he has already compromised democracy since 2017 (to 1970s levels)—at least as non-recent as the long-accepted textual content. Do reliable sources, and you, not see what's been undeniable for years?—RCraig09 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A Google search (especially a non-neutral one) is obviously not relevant to assessing RS. Riposte97 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The results of the search are what is important, on a source by source basis. Look at the results. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Include. This is almost certainly too eventualist a rhetoric by Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO, as Wikipedia definitely has a goal to inform about the events of the past decade through reliable scholarship, which this graph represents. BasicWriting (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

How Trump's legacy is already clearly established:

Minnesota State Bar Association (2025): "The Trump presidency has already established a lasting legacy when it comes to the damage wrought to American democracy." Q.E.D.
NPR (2026): "Trump is dismantling democracy at 'unprecedented' speed, global report finds"
V-Dem (2026): p. 5: "President Trump’s second term can be summarized as a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency." And p. 33: "The scale and speed of autocratization under the Trump administration are unprecedented in modern times."

— V-Dem chart's value for 2017—nine years ago!—shows a five-decade retreat to 1970s levels. 2026's dramatic decline merely accelerates an existing downtrend proven nine years earlier.

Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2022): "Trump’s Legacy: The Long-Term Risks to American Democracy" (Trump's continuation of Republicans' ongoing rightward shift)
Council on Foreign Relations (2021): Trump's accomplishments "are dwarfed by what Trump got wrong. Three failures in particular stand out. The first is the damage he has done to American democracy." ("has done" is past tense)
Asia-Pacific Review (journal; 2021): "the presidency of Donald Trump could be regarded as a cause of degradation of American democracy."
Brightline Watch (2026): "Among experts, the average rating of the U.S. (57) is closer to that of the hypothetical illiberal democracy (47) than to the hypothetical strong democracy (93)."
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (international implications, 2025): Trump "has discarded America’s historic support for democracy abroad and dismantled the infrastructure and funding created to promote it."

These observations will not "disappear" with passage of time. No one needs to wait to figure out what his legacy will be. His legacy is established, regardless of whether democracy recovers or further declines.

The chart—just look at the 9-year changes!—graphically portrays what is already his legacy, and should be included. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Didn't know about a lot of these sources. But give this a year or two and there will probably be a case to be made for a whole sub-section under the "Political practice and rhetoric" header about democratic backsliding under Trump, and then this graph could be added there. This seems to be quickly becoming a defining aspect of his legacy, but I'm more on the cautious side and we should probably wait another year or two. These sources should definitely be added onto other relevant pages, however! BootsED (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Include. Citing the paper published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Nevertheless, the aggressiveness of Trump’s executive aggrandizement is worrisome. Despite the relative strength of U.S. democratic constraints, Trump has pursued his agenda with a speed that outpaces even some of the most rapid cases of democratic erosion, like Hungary and Poland. And compared to the backsliding approaches taken in countries ranging from Ecuador to India, the Trump team’s approach has been more immediate and expansive than is common. It may seem comforting that despite this rapidity, U.S. democratic backsliding is still less institutionalized or overtly repressive than many other backsliding cases. But in light of the high barriers to democratic erosion in the United States, what makes the current context especially troubling is not the relative extremity of Trump’s executive aggrandizement, but how fast and systematically he has achieved these aims within a democratic system once thought to be impervious. The index nosedived in Trump's first term, somewhat recovered during Biden's term, and is taking another and deeper nosedive in Trump's second term. This may warrant a subsection in "Political practice" now. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment "a democratic system once thought to be impervious" Impervious? There is no such thing on this planet, and I thought that democracy in the States had already declined with the Patriot Act (2001), which allowed "the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order". Dimadick (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Question: RCraig09, is it possible to add more markers to the chart? It's interesting how the trend lines rose fairly steeply from 1960 to 1980, then remained relatively flat until a nosedive after 9/11, and rose again during the Obama years. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Reply to @Space4Time3Continuum2x:/Space4TCatHerder: It's graphically possible to add markers, but shouldn't really be done in this case. Both suffrage and Trump are mentioned in the source (8x and 131x by keyword searches, respectively), and show the most distinctive changes in the chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Quantitative analysis: @Riposte97, Objective3000, Slatersteven, Mandruss, GoodDay, BootsED, and BasicWriting: Beyond the bare fact that Trump's democracy downturn is nine years old (overcoming perceptions of WP:Recentism), note that the 0.26 index point declline since 2016 is 81% (!) of the 0.32 point postwar gain from 1946 through 2016. Countless sources—samples presented above—confirm this established trend. Seriously, what will ten or eleven years' experience tell us about his "long-term presidential legacy" (Consensus point #37, above) beyond what is known after nine years? It's time. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
That it had long-term effects and was not just partisan scaremongering. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Has the percentage of eligible voters gone up in the 2016, 2020 & 2024 presidential elections? The 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 & 2024 congressional elections? the 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023 & 2025 off-year elections? When compared to the previous (1964 to 2015) 51 years? GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If you peruse references you'll see that attacking democracy involves executive power suppressing the legislative and judicial branches, and selective voter suppression rather than mere voter turnout —RCraig09 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Exclude graph but include the content. The graph itself is worthless biffle, the information is important if reliably sourced. Lines and charts are not suitable to convey the topic of the subjects fascination with being a totalitarian leader and eroding traditional American institutions to get there. Write it. Dust of your old Freshman Composition 101 notes and create prose. Zaathras (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
But why not include both the graph and of course the information in written pose along with citations? I don't see how visualizing things is problematic at all. ~2026-16297-11 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I've re-added the caption above. I'm failing to see how a graphic that instantly and intuitively puts the reliably sourced content into historical perspective is "biffle" and less appropriate than a Wikipedia editor practicing Freshman Composition 101 after reading the same content. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you mentioned Freshman Composition 101, could you also note that Trump’s strongest supporters are white men without college degrees? Literally, educational attainment predicted support for Trump better than any factor except race. The best metonym of Trumpism is West Virginia, one of the whitest and least-educated states.~2026-21563-59 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't bring such claims to this page without reliable sources to support them. Without that, you're bringing your opinions, which are irrelevant for our purposes. Save them for dinner with your friends. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the link for the source used for the Republican Party article. Also look at the exit poll for the 2024 United States presidential election, with the phrase “Educational attainment.”

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/steve-kornacki-white-men-white-women-gap-gender-gap-rcna196791 ~2026-21674-35 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Pew Research: "the share of Republican voters who are White and have no college degree has substantially declined since 2016." The perennial question, still unanswered with any level of consensus: How much sourcing is enough for inclusion?

This is one of those issues that needs more thorough coverage than we can include in this biography of Trump the man, not the president. That coverage belongs in one or both of the presidency articles, if not even lower in the hierarchy of Trump articles (see WP:TRUMPOTA).

Otherwise it just looks like (more) POV-pushing, i.e. attempts to place our personal, subjective viewpoints where they have the highest possible visibility at Wikipedia, throwing up a handful of selected sources that say what we want to say and claiming they fairly represent the whole. We've been watching that happen for over ten years now. I'd be more inclined to support this in this article after ~2029, when (1) we will have a few years' more historical perspective on this topic and (2) there will be less at stake politically. Wikipedia should not be a political battleground. If you_plural are here to help save the world from Trump and his kind, you're here for the wrong reasons. We do that by participating in the democratic process—voting, peaceful protests, letters to the editors, letters to our lawmakers, etc.—and Wikipedia is not a part of that.

(Signed, a white male without a college degree who strenuously opposes Trump and Trumpism.) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The 20:45 post essentially gives the existing second paragraph of /* Rhetoric, behavior, and political practice */ a pass, while insinuating a bad faith editorial attempt to push a "personal" editorial "POV" by including a chart that visually presents essentially the same content. "Trump-and-democracy" content is already widespread and essentially unanimous among reliable sources, and thus is not editorial POV pushing on Wikipedia. But, wow: To purposely delay until there is "less at stake politically" is an explicit attempt to censor that content for political reasons. (PS- The White/non-college share issue is a editor-centric red herring.) Please reconsider. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done reconsidering. Nothing else to say except that I have not insinuated bad faith in this case. Feel free to continue that philosophical discussion at my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Exclude. Absolutely does not belong in this article. Some arbitrary numbers published by a single organization do not represent general views of experts and are not notable for this article on Trump's personal life. Is this something many reliable sources cite as evidence of the decline of democracy under Trump? No, it's relatively niche compared to the boatload of coverage on Trump. Bill Williams 06:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What? The "numbers" aren't "arbitrary" but are published by an organization that is described as the "de facto gold standard in empirical democracy research." Biographies are little concerned about a subject's "personal life"; retrogressing US democracy a half-century is a legacy that is already established, per the various exemplary sources that are, ahem, already listed above and already supported in the /* Rhetoric, behavior, and political practice */ section that has passed muster in an article with >4000 watchers. "Experts" who do comment on the Trump-and-democracy issue are essentially unanimous; it's irrelevant that that there is "coverage on Trump" other than his established effect on democracy. How can we trivialize the massive effect that a person has on a leading nation's democracy as being a "niche" part of his biography? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Exclude. Compelling comments from Bill Williams. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See my contemporaneous response to Bill Williams. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Except that those comments are definitely not compelling in any way shape or form. Plenty of sources and credible researchers have agreed on the negative uh "contributions" that Trump has made to the decline of US democratic institutions, etc. No need to suppress or exclude these findings from the article here. ~2026-21498-61 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Exclude. Not a generally recognized system only extant since 2014. Also, the comments from Bill Williams are on point and relevant. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Biden link in "Succeeded by"

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Original heading: Can anyone add a link to Joe Biden on the "succeeded by" part? I'm not eligible to edit this article ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you PardonMeForMyPoorAbilitiesInName-Making (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That is an MOS:OVERLINK because it's linked right above in "preceded by". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, didn't saw that PardonMeForMyPoorAbilitiesInName-Making (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The correct (or more relevant) MOS guideline is MOS:LINKONCE. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 06:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Several issues

Latest comment: 2 months ago49 comments11 people in discussion

I deleted the following sections because they clearly violate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, having little reliable source coverage after a brief period of time, having little relation to Trump's life for this article, and clearly showing a biased reason for inclusion. However, an editor reverted me with little explanation, so I'm taking it to the talk page:

Trump's policy platform (Agenda 47) was vague, to limit criticism and maintain flexibility.^[2] Trump occasionally disavowed knowledge of the Project 2025 group, formed to institutionalize Trumpism,^[3] despite personnel overlap with his first administration.^[4]^[5] Trump chose several Project 2025 authors for his second administration,^[6] and most of his early second term executive actions would "mirror or partially mirror" its proposals.^[7]

Trump's second-term foreign policy was described as expansionist and imperialist.^[8]^[9]

In November 2025, Trump pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been extradited to the U.S. in 2022 and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking.

I also rewrote the following section from:

In Trump's first term, from 2017 to 2021, international approval ratings of U.S. leadership dropped from about 22 percent in a Gallup poll^[10] of 134 countries to 16 percent—lower than China's Xi Jinping and Russia's Vladimir Putin—in a Pew Research poll^[11] of 13 countries. In 2017, estimation of U.S. leadership declined most among allies.^[12] Domestically, Trump had chiefly partisan support: 88 percent among Republicans and 7 percent among Democrats.^[13] In a 2021 Gallup poll, he was the only president never to reach a 50 percent approval rating, and he was the first not to be named most admired in his first year in office.^[14]

And I replaced it with:

In Trump's first term, Trump's approval rating showed partisan divisions, with 88 percent support from Republicans and 7 percent among Democrats.^[13] In a 2021 Gallup poll, he was the only president never to reach a 50 percent approval rating, and he was the first not to be named most admired in his first year in office.^[15]

For Agenda 47, it's a niche topic that got little coverage at any point in time and doesn't even belong in any Trump sub-articles. For Project 2025, it has nothing to do with Trump's BLP, it merits a brief mention in his second presidency article because Democrats in the media constantly claimed that he was abiding by it, but after his first month there was no mention of it (even analysis of his first month actions rarely mentions Project 2025), so it's both a WP:BLP and a WP:NOTNEWS violation to include it here. In terms of referring to his foreign policy as "expansionist" and "imperialist," it's also a WP:NOTNEWS violation because few reliable sources used these terms except during brief periods of fiasco surrounding Greenland and Panama; they are loaded terms that require significantly more coverage to merit inclusion. In terms of pardoning the Honduran president, that doesn't have any significance whatsoever to Trump's second term, much less his whole life, so it makes no sense to include it in this article; some editor put it next to the mention of boat strikes and Maduro's arrest to draw some parallel with how Trump let a drug lord off the hook and then killed/arrested others, but that's just a WP:NPOV violation, we don't include content here as a diss to Trump if it has little significance overall. As for Trump's international approval rating, that has zero relevance whatsoever for his personal article; reliable sources focus 99.9% of their attention on his domestic approval rating, so it is not nearly significant enough for his international approval rating to belong here, and again it was added as some WP:NPOV violation to contrast how unpopular Trump is with Putin and Xi, as if that is something reliable sources regularly do.Bill Williams 20:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Bill Williams 20:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Support removal, oppose the whitewashing. Good restoration of relevant material. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Support, going with trims to article on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment. "Clearly violate", "clearly showing a biased reason for inclusion": presume good intent (WP:AGF). Spare us the indignation and see consensus #37 (summary-level mention). E.g. Agenda 47, linked inline. This article cites one RS, but clicking the link takes the reader to an article with 220 cited sources for the "niche topic". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You're only making arguments for why we should remove the content. Agenda 47 is something completely irrelevant that doesn't belong in this article. Project 2025 at least got a lot of coverage from reliable sources (I still think it shouldn't be mentioned in Trump's BLP), Agenda 47 did not. "220 cited sources" means nothing, for something notable about Trump, you can often find 20000+ sources on it. This article doesn't even say anything about what Agenda 47 is, except that it was bad in Wikivoice. WP:NPOV violation galore. Bill Williams 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

And to be clear, I say Agenda 47 is irrelevant and one simple reason is that this very article agrees with me, claiming "Trump's policy platform (Agenda 47) was vague, to limit criticism and maintain flexibility." Agenda 47 wasn't the actual agglomeration of Trump's policy proposals for the 2024 election, so it isn't significant and shouldn't be in this article. Bill Williams 00:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm voting for here. Am I supporting keeping the content thus "removing" the rewrite? Or does support mean I support the rewrite and thus support removing the long-standing text? Because I support keeping the text the same as it was before any rewrite. This proposal conflates a bunch of stuff together and is hard to follow. BootsED (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no "proposal" so there is nothing to "conflate." I made a few edits and was reverted for some of them, so I brought it to the talk page. I mentioned the separate issues separately within this thread, but I'm not going to waste time starting 5 different talk page threads. Bill Williams 00:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This section appears to be about restoring 2 protective reverts made for edits by Bill Williams. The reverting editor invited BRD discussion and Bill Williams edits are supported by Zaarthras and myself for being restored. Bill Williams edits are accurate and should be restored. Can someone restore the 2 edits which are now supported after 3-4 days of discussion? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

These appear to be a rather large edits that would take time for editors to examine, please be patient. At the very least I think EvergreenFir should be given a chance discuss it since they reverted with edit summaries explaining why. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

There are also some editors who oppose, so I don't think the claim that restoration is "now supported" is accurate. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not claiming one exists or doesn't exist here, but consensus is rarely unanimous. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

consensus is rarely unanimous Oh yes, absolutely, Mandruss. I am simply noting that ErnestKrause failed to mention that there was any opposition, and framed the above comment as if consensus was already clearly formed, which I do not think that it is. Agree that we should wait for EvergreenFir to weigh in as well, at a minimum. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

EK has a habit of making unsubstantiated claims of consensus. I think most of us have learned to just ignore provided he leaves the article alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Odd comment and aspersion from you; I've listed the editors supporting Bill Williams. That appears to cause you consternation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

My primary objection is to the removal of Project 2025, which has sustained coverage by RS and is relevant to his reelection and biography. The rest could actually be condensed (eg the comparison to Xi and Putin) but his unpopularity and polarized popularity need to be mentioned at least. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I never removed his unpopularity or polarized popularity, I removed the mention of how people in foreign countries view him, which there is a negligible amount of data on, and that data is incredibly inaccurate (polling is often inaccurate within the country of the polling company, much less when you poll 100 other countries). And most importantly, reliable sources place almost zero emphasis on his approval ratings abroad, they focus entirely on his approval ratings in the US. I agree that Project 2025 differs from the rest of what I proposed to remove, since there is at least some justification for including it, but the rest is just WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP, violations, because some editors want to pack as much negative content in this article as possible. I didn't vote for Trump and I don't like Trump, yet it isn't hard for me to comply with basic Wikipedia policy on neutrality. Bill Williams 15:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir: His removal of Project 2025 and Agenda 47 material looks like it is consistent with giving place a preference to Trump as a supoorter of MAGA; that is, if Trump supporting MAGA is self-evident then Project 2025 and Agenda 47 fall into place and don't need explicit mention. That does not seem objectionable in and of itself. The edits from Bill Williams look like they ought to be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

if Trump supporting MAGA is self-evident then Project 2025 and Agenda 47 fall into place and don't need explicit mention On the contrary, I think this boosts the case for very brief explicit mention with links to those main articles. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

BillWilliams removed longstanding content, so you need a consensus to remove. We have some editors supporting some removal, other editors opposing removal of some content, and it's unclear (to me, at least) who is supporting removal of which content. I know you always support removal of any content proposed for removal because (User_talk:Bill_Williams#Trump page). Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The Foreign policy section is poorly written and Bill Williams' edits seems to put it on a path to improvement. The section is also chronologically garbled with a very broad preface paragraph followed by mention of the Iran War in the middle of the section covering March-April, and then the section ends by going backwards in time to the Greenland affair and the Maduro affair at the start of this calendar year. At least Bill Williams' edit tries to improve the poor writing in that section. The Bill Williams edits ought to be restored. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose on procedural grounds, each item should be discussed separately, not as a whole. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
That seems a little on the strict side of things; you are asking him to start 5 separate threads to address the revert placed against him by Evergreen. That seems like a little too much to ask for under the circumstances. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Not at all; it's called organization. The minimization of table of contents entries is low on our priorities list, particularly during this time of relative quiet on this page. Separate discussions worked well just a few weeks ago, as seen here. When asked to split, that editor did not complain about the overwhelming oppressive effects of bureaucracy. I'm guessing they understand organization.
Please learn to use bullet lists correctly; I have fixed this occurrence like I and others have fixed most of yours. I'm getting tired of it. This is not a pedantic nit but an important accessibility concern. If you need help with this, visit WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HD. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion of "several issues"

Confusing way of bringing these unrelated issues (Hernandez pardon/Maduro kidnapping, Project 2025/Agenda 47, expansionism, international polling) to the Talk page for discussion, so I'll be tackling them one after the other as I find the time. (Zaathras, I can't tell which ones of Bill's removals you support and which ones you oppose.) Starting with this one:

Hernandez/Maduro, re this bold edit, this revert. RS were pointing out the disconnect between Trump's rhetoric of "fighting narco-terrorism" and his actions, i.e., pardoning Hernandez while blowing up small boats and killing their crews in the Caribbean and attacking Maduro verbally: Time, CS Monitor, LA Times. After Trump had Maduro kidnapped from Venezuela, RS in numerous countries, in addition to the one cited in the article, wrote about Trump pardoning a convicted South American drug trafficker, who had been legally extradited from Honduras, and invading another country to carry off, without legal extradition, an alleged drug trafficker to face trial in the U.S.: NY Times, Axios, ABC (Au), Foreign Affairs, Economic Times, India, NBC, IBT, ProPublica. Hernandez, BTW, was last reported residing at a luxury hotel in NY, exempt from deportation, while Honduras has an international arrest warrant out on him for money laundering and fraud. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 11:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC) aka some editor

WP:NOTNEWS x100. It's a trivial detail that some news outlets mentioned as a fun factoid at the time about how absurd Trump's behavior is (pardoning a criminal while going after others). However, it's not a major detail about Trump's life or even his presidency because reliable sources TODAY almost never mention it when they bring up his boat strikes or his capture of Maduro. Bill Williams 00:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely cannot be minimized as simply a "trivial detail"; it is worth noting. See, for example:

The Wall Street Journal: How a Man Convicted of Running a Latin American Narco State Landed a Pardon by Vera Bergengruen, Alex Leary, José de Córdoba and Josh Dawsey.

A brief mention adds greater context to Trump's war on drugs policy. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Either my understanding of a "fun factoid" is different from yours, or you haven't read the sources. NY Times: "Trump’s Personal Geopolitics"; Axios: "Trump's inconsistent — and often personalized — approach to halting drug smuggling into the U.S."; Aussie ABC: "It's just one of the stark contradictions surrounding Trump's seismic decision to capture Maduro"; Foreign Affairs, headline "The predatory hegemon": "Even convicted drug traffickers, including former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, can win a presidential pardon if they appear to be aligned with Trump’s agenda", "His decision to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—an act that sets a dangerous example for other great powers to follow—reveals a predator’s disregard for existing norms and a willingness to exploit others’ weaknesses"; Economic Times: "The dramatic contrast between U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military-style operation and his earlier decision to pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández has exposed what critics describe as a stark double standard in U.S. foreign and anti-drugs policy"; NBC: "Trump is defending his pardon of former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of similar charges to deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro"; IBT: "Trump's contrasting actions this week, jailing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro on drug charges while pardoning a convicted trafficker, have exposed deep contradictions in US drug policy and provoked international outrage"; ProPublica: one heck of a read on Hernandez's "absolutely fucking nuts" preferred treatment, including the U.S. government paying $1,000 per night for his stay at the Waldorf Astoria, while the U.S. invaded Venezuela and blew up boats alleged to be carrying drugs. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 15:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've read the sources so I don't need you questioning my understanding of them. You cherrypicked some sources that agree with you (I mean seriously, Economic Times of India, ABC Australia, and International Business Times? Are we going to check what the press in Congo said next?), which violates WP:NPOV, because most reliable sources that mentioned the Maduro capture and the boat strikes don't bring up the Honduran president's pardon. And furthermore, you completely backed up my point; six of the eight sources that you listed are from a two day period in January, so please read WP:NOTNEWS before replying back to me. I stand by what I said, it's a trivial detail and a fun factoid that is not significant overall for Trump's presidency or his life, and therefore it doesn't belong in this article. Bill Williams 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

What looks like "a trivial detail and a fun factoid" to you, looks like one part of a larger pattern of Trump's transactional manner of conducting policy to many others, including reliable sources. I am also appalled that you find the use of international sources to be problematic, because having a diversity of sources actually helps us to see outside of the Americentric bubble. Wikipedia is a global project, in case anyone needs to be reminded of that. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This clearly belongs in one of the Trump articles if not already there. To actually invade another country and kidnap a foreign leader while pardoning another foreign leader convicted of the same crime is a widely covered, historic event. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Cherrypicked: it's called a Google search, and how else am I going to find sources? Don't remember my search terms, probably s.th. along the lines of "trump pardon hernandez maduro venezuela" because that just resulted in the sources I cited and others I didn't cite, such as the English edition of El Pais, dated January 4, 2026, [Politico, dated December 2, 2025, and the NYT, dated November 28, 2025. That makes it roughly a three-month period from November 28 to February 18, and we'll probably hear more when Maduro goes to trial. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Expansionism, Greenland, re this bold edit, this revert, another bold edit, and its revert. Starting with Greenland: I added the two sentences after this discussion. I also voted "omit for now", so I'm Switzerland on this one. The sources for the eleven words on expansionism are NYT and AP, i.e., it's reliably sourced, and Trump keeps harping on Greenland whenever he whines about lack of support from NATO and Europe for his military operation or whatever the preferred term-du-jour is. I'll look up recent sources if anyone insists on it, but

. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 18:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Still going with Bill Williams and company on this. Greenland was headline news for a week and then Trump dropped the topic following NATO pushback; no bullets fired. It still is getting 2 sentences in the biography here. After 7 weeks of devastating strategic bombing in Iran, then the article gives it 2 sentences? Which part of this comparison is not clear to you? Your comments on Maduro can also be organized in a stronger manner; if you are reading Trump's orders concerning Maduro as part of foreign interventionism on a line with Trump's orders for Iran nuclear facility bombing and then Iran navy dismantlement by bombing then you might be closer to something useful. Otherwise the condense and trim edits by Bill Williams and company should go forward as insightful and useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Greenland was headline news for a week and then Trump dropped the topic following NATO pushback ... You must be in the US, cause this sounds like an extremely United States centric perspective. It was much more consequential than just being "headline news for a week", which is actually huge oversimplification. ~2026-22380-45 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot about the discussion which appears to have reached a consensus to include Greenland in the body, albeit unclosed. I have already been reverted (with a different rationale than "violates consensus"), and I have added consensus 75 to the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I previously had a version of this that said it "created an international crisis" and then linked it to the page Greenland crisis. I think this makes the notability of this incident much more apparent. BootsED (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why you're mentioning Greenland at all because it has nothing to do with what I said. Greenland is significant for this article, calling Trump "imperialist" and "expansionist" is not. Most reliable sources that discussed Greenland did not use those loaded terms, except for a few during a few week period, but again WP:NOTNEWS. Bill Williams 00:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The main article is still linked at "Trump threatened the annexation of Greenland". Did an earlier source use the term "international crisis" or s.th. similar? The current NYT source says "appeared to draw the United States back from the possibility of military and economic conflict with his allies over Greenland", i.e., crisis averted. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 18:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Agenda 47, Project 2025, re this bold edit and this revert. Agenda 47 has an entire article of its own — see the Wikilink in the sentence. Project 2025 also has an article of its own, with a section on the agenda's implementation so far. I've replaced "and most of his early second term executive actions would 'mirror or partially mirror' its proposals" and its source with "after the first year of his second term about half of the project's agenda had been implemented" with two RS. This brief mention appears justified at this point in time. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

International polling. Approval ratings of the job Trump is doing as a world leader belong in his personal bio. International polls are complicated, as explained by Gallup in January 2026, skewed by limited international recognition of some leaders in comparison with leaders who are continually in the headlines: A deeper measure is country reach — the number of countries in which each leader holds a positive net image. Measured by the number of countries with positive net perception, Pope Leo leads with 51 countries, followed by Xi Jinping with 18, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with 13 each, Narendra Modi with 11, and Benjamin Netanyahu with only 5. This country-reach ranking tells a deeper story than global averages alone. I removed mention of Xi and Putin as overdetail but think we should leave the first-term assessment. At the end of the second term, we'll replace it with the global opinion study for both terms or add the study for the second term. Trump's ratings: end-of-year survey 2025. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

For the very reason you mentioned, international polling is far less accurate than domestic polling. This isn't an article on Trump's foreign policy, it's an article on Trump. International polling has little relevant to him or his presidency, and reliable sources barely mention it. They often mention qualitative assessments of how world leaders dislike him, and I think that's legitimate to include; however, you can find 1000x the reporting on his domestic approval rating compared to his international approval rating. Bill Williams 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a good summary. Mentioning Agenda 47 as his policy proposals for his second term ties into Project 2025 which was also heavily discussed during his second presidential campaign. Keeping a mention of it in this section makes sense as it was extremely notable and got lots of media coverage. I don't understand the argument that a section about Trump's 2024 campaign shouldn't have mention of his campaign proposals or major media coverage about it because a year after his campaign nobody talks about his presidential campaign anymore. That's why its in the 2024 campaign section, because it was highly relevant during his 2024 campaign.

I'd keep the international polling as well. Trump is unique among US presidents as causing a greater decline in favorability among international polls than other presidents, so highlighting this is due. A poll just came out that a majority of Europeans view America as a greater threat than China under Trump, so his second term will likely say more of the same. BootsED (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR, so everything you just said has no merit here. You can personally think Trump is making America decline internationally and find all the research you want to back up that conclusion (I completely agree and I often find his behavior abhorrent), but reliable sources rarely bring up international polling to make that argument. It isn't notable or quotable, much less for Trump's BLP. Bill Williams 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've rephrased the text on Agenda 47 and Project 2025 in the 2024 campaign section and moved the rest of Project 2025 into the second term section where we already mentioned the New York Times assessment that his attempts to expand presidential power are a defining characteristic of his second term (one of the central objectives of Project 2025). Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The Foreign policy section is poorly written and Bill Williams' edits seems to put it on a path to improvement. The section is also chronologically garbled with a very broad preface paragraph followed by mention of the Iran War in the middle of the section covering March-April, and then the section ends by going backwards in time to the Greenland affair at the start of this calendar year. At least Bill Williams' edit tries to improve the poor writing in that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, re this edit which I reverted along with the remainder of BillWilliam's. The NYT's reporting boils down to "attempts to expand presidential power". They use "consolidate" in context: trying to consolidate control over the courts, Congress and even, in some ways, American society and culture. They also say this:

aggressive effort across multiple fronts to assert executive authority;
dismantled independent measures of checks and balances, fired inspectors general and installed loyalists at the Justice Department willing to carry out his campaign of retribution;
efforts to reshape institutions in his image have not been limited to the government and policy. Mr. Trump has tried to spread his influence through the arts, as well;
Trump’s latest target — the judiciary — has been described by constitutional scholars and historians as perhaps the most alarming power play to date;
and cite Stephen Vladeck: We’ve never seen a president so comprehensively attempt to arrogate and consolidate so much of the other branches’ power. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 12:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The pay-wall is still active; I'm returning it to the citation. It could use a second citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "limited" applies, the NYT grants "limited access to limited free articles, news alerts, select newsletters, podcasts and some daily games" to people who sign up for a free account, and to people with certain work or school email accounts. It's an optional parameter, anyway. Also, please add replies above "sources-talk". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources

1 2 Cite error: The named reference VDEM_Report_2026 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
↑ Bump, Philip (June 18, 2024). "Trump has unveiled an agenda of his own. He just doesn't mention it much". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2024.
↑ Garcia-Navarro, Lulu (January 21, 2024). "Inside the Heritage Foundation's Plans for 'Institutionalizing Trumpism'". The New York Times. Retrieved June 23, 2024.
↑ Contorno, Steve (July 11, 2024). "Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved". CNN. Retrieved July 11, 2024.
↑ Prokop, Andrew (July 13, 2024). "Project 2025: The myths and the facts". Vox. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
↑ Alfonseca, Kiara; Faulders, Katherine (December 9, 2024). "How Trump has infused parts of Project 2025 into his administration". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2025.
↑ Popli, Nik (January 24, 2025). "Trump's Early Actions Mirror Project 2025". Time. Retrieved January 25, 2025.
↑ Colvin, Jill; Gillies, Rob (January 9, 2025). "Trump, the 'America First' candidate, has a new preoccupation: Imperialism". AP News. Retrieved January 28, 2025.
↑ Erlanger, Steven (January 7, 2026). "Europe and Rest of World Try to Come to Terms With Trump the Imperialist". The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2026.
↑ Datta, Monti (September 16, 2019). "3 countries where Trump is popular". The Conversation. Retrieved October 3, 2021.
↑ Wike, Richard; Fetterolf, Janell; Mordecai, Mara (September 15, 2020). "U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly". Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 24, 2020.
↑ "Rating World Leaders: 2018 The U.S. vs. Germany, China and Russia". Gallup, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2021 – via Politico. Page 9
1 2 Jones, Jeffrey M. (January 18, 2021). "Last Trump Job Approval 34%; Average Is Record-Low 41%". Gallup, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2021.
↑ Bach, Natash (December 28, 2017). "Trump Is the Only Elected U.S. President Not to Be Named America's Most Admired Man In His First Year". Fortune. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
↑ Bach, Natash (December 28, 2017). "Trump Is the Only Elected U.S. President Not to Be Named America's Most Admired Man In His First Year". Fortune. Retrieved November 19, 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found ne winfo on his buisness carreer ~2026-24396-91 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The link is not there

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Biden is linked just above that point in the infobox, and the link is not repeated per MOS:DUPLINK. This point gets far too much attention on this page. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

there is a link for Joe Biden on the info box on the left that's not there. can someone please fix the links. thanks The goat with a horn on his head (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2026 (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.

Partial statement of this article's mission

Latest comment: 1 month ago63 comments16 people in discussion

Scheduled closure. I am involved but closing against my own position.

This level-2 section shows general support-in-principle, but the following survey did not reach consensus for a specific change. Therefore I'm closing as "no consensus".

Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Excerpted from a recent comment by Aquillion :

[...] This is not the article on his presidency; this is the article on Trump as an individual. We should cover key overarching aspects of how he is covered and described in the sources, in accordance with the amount of focus that those aspects have received in high-quality coverage throughout his life, rather than trying to have a blow-by-blow of every event that occurred in every part of his presidency. [...] blow-by-blow details belong on the article for his second presidential term.

I think it's time we adopted this principle by explicit consensus. This is important enough to warrant a new consensus list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 12:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as proposer. We need to be on the same page regarding this, even if some of us would still prefer to be on a different page. We can't move the article in two directions at the same time. Being specific to our situation, an explicit consensus would be more effective than general, vague, ambiguous, and disputed PAGs like WP:NOTNEWS. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 12:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Don't we already have a consensus to that effect, i.e. #37? Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. IMO "summary-level" precludes "blow-by-blow of every event". Maybe add the clarification that things that are not likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should not be mentioned. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 21:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
There is no evidence like empirical evidence. Consensus 37 has not been enough to prevent a lot of unnecessary discussion and inappropriate content, and has long been regarded as ineffective by me and some others. That's what this proposal hopes to change. Maybe #37 could eventually be canceled as unnecessary, but that's outside the scope of this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support this is about the man. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Clarify as having read Aquillion's original thread. The separation of the years of his presidency from his years as an individual seems prone to difficulties. It seems to imply that somehow the president's years in office exempt him from the conduct otherwise expected for figures in the public eye; that type of distinction does not appear to work in general in case after case. Aquillion's comment is made at a time when Trump is waging warfare upon Iran in 2026 appears to be stating that his moral conduct for doing this is somehow exempt from closer scrutiny; that's a position that's difficult to take since others will state that his moral conduct is being put to the test under vigorous journalistic criticism. Therefore it would seem that it should be placed more prominently in Trump's main biography article here rather that exempted or minimized in Wikipedia coverage because he, even as an individual, happens to be in office. Some clarification of why presidential activity should not be distinguished from his non-presidential life coverage needs more to be said about it. The current two sentences about Trump's conduct in the 2026 Iran War in the current Wikipedia article seems inadequate for the war now in its 4th week of conflict. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the Iran War. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose deletion or minimizing coverage of Trump's presidential activities while in office; that is not how other war presidents are covered on Wikipedia. For example, Lincoln and the Civil War, Washington and the Revolutionary War, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Content about the Vicksburg campaign was not added to Abraham Lincoln until some 140 years after it happened. Content about the Siege of Boston was not added to George Washington until some 230 years after it happened. This is blindingly obvious; please think more before commenting. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 14:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
What is also blindingly obvious is that internet encyclopaedias were not around back then, if we are conversing on tangibility. BasicWriting (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
My point was that more than ample historical perspective existed at the time that content was published on this site. That is not the case here, and that's the essential difference. Would Wikipedia editors have added content about the Vicksburg campaign to Abraham Lincoln in 1863? We have no way of knowing. So EK's comment missed the mark by a wide margin, and was a classic "other stuff" error. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 02:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

To put it another way, no one has suggested we do not include what Historians think are the most significant events of his presidency in his biography, only that historians have not decided yet, as it is not over. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
We have to base the weight we give to aspects of his presidency based on the coverage they receive, not on speculation for how significant they'll be in the future; I think it's reasonable to say that it's premature to give his bombing of Iran the same weight as the American Revolution or the Civil War (!!!). Obviously it needs to be mentioned (and it is) but Trump's biography and two terms in office are full of things that need to be mentioned; and current coverage of this aspect just doesn't support the degree of weight you're giving it. See particularly this - he's already talking about wanting to wrap it up quickly. Whether he'll get that is another story but the scenarios I outlined above (declaring victory and one-sidedly ending it with minimal long-term impact, or reducing it to a low boil) still seem like the most likely outcomes. If it escalates into WW3, or if it becomes an all-consuming scandal that leaves a major mark on his biography, or leads to his third impeachment trial or another felony conviction somehow, or just turns out to have other major long-term consequences, we can always expand it then. But I'm going to be blunt because a lot of the underlying dispute (based on your comments above) seems to be about how to weigh this against his views on race and gender - I think that based on current coverage it reasonable to conclude that, in ten years, he will still be more known for his views on race and gender and the stamp that those things put on American politics than he is for dropping bombs on Iran for a few weeks. The unfortunate reality is that, while I agree it's terrible, tossing a bunch of bombs at a country with a vague mission and without congressional approval is, in fact, much less noteworthy or unusual for a US president; and the coverage reflects that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm thinking that somewhere on this Talk page that someone stated that a one sentence addition to the current sentence about the death of the Ayatollah may not be a bad idea. For Aquillion, I'm adding that the larger issue is not that of Trump currently dropping 'bombs' on Iran in 2026; its really more about the protracted belligerent warfare diplomacy which he appears to have enacted starting with the bombing of targeted nuclear sites in Iran 6 months ago, to the military capture and extradition of Maduro in Venezuela, to the current warfare of dismantling Iran's general military capacities. When combined together, then this seems like a more substantial matter than just throwing 'bombs' in the past few weeks as you seem to be stating above. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is not about the Iran War (or any other specific issue), but about a general principle. Let's try to stay on topic. Discussion about the Iran War is in a different thread. The Iran War content disagreement is hardly the only impetus for this proposal; we have been dealing with this problem for about eleven years. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, obviously. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support-ish. I think that in general this statement is clearly correct. I don't believe it means that any particular detail about his presidency should necessarily be excluded and in particular I don't agree with Aquillion above that the war with Iran should be covered less because of it. The article is about Donald Trump the man, but Trump is president and as president has started a war that few other people in his position would have. I think this is more for blow-by-blow of particular statements than major policy actions. Loki (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually, let me change to supporting this alternative wording:

This article is on Trump as an individual, not about Trump's presidency specifically. While notable moments of his presidency should be covered in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, this is not the article for a blow-by-blow account of every comment or decision Trump has made as president. Place exhaustive detail about his presidencies in the dedicated articles for them.
Loki (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. Now we have four alternative proposals: mine, yours, Bill Williams' below, and "no change". Four is already too many for a likely majority consensus, so I'm asking that we refine the existing proposals rather than add new ones. I'll probably initiate a survey with those proposals in a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The previous discussion was to add one sentence about Trump ordering the attack on the son after the death of the father. The one sentence addition was reverted from the article. It appears that this one sentence addition has caused much of the current discussion among those not in agreement. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the Iran War. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This was always the case, although I'm not sure why we need to have this stated explicitly. BootsED (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a fair question. My answer: As merely one of countless similar cases, we would not have spent 2,500 words, among seven editors, spanning 20 days in this discussion. So far; the discussion remains open. Instead, the bold edit would have been reverted with "per consensus 75". The bold editor's only recourse would be to propose a change to consensus 75, and there is a proper resistance to revisiting consensuses. Now multiply that by about a hundred, and you should begin to see the future benefit of an explicit consensus. Editor time is a finite resource and there is never enough of it to do what needs to be done. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 14:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
By my reading of this, that discussion wouldn't have been covered by this consensus at all. The war in Iran has clearly received heavy coverage in reliable sources and is a major aspect of his presidency, which is in turn the main source of his notability. It totally makes sense to propose the section on it be expanded significantly even with this consensus in place. Loki (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Even if you're right, you're beside the point. If this consensus wouldn't cover the Iran War issue, it would still cover dozens of others. Look at the big picture. Continued diversions about the Iran War disagreement threaten to derail this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Loki makes a strong point when he states: "The war in Iran has clearly received heavy coverage in reliable sources and is a major aspect of his presidency, which is in turn the main source of his notability. It totally makes sense to propose the section on it be expanded significantly even with this consensus in place." As the 2026 Iran War approaches its fifth week, then it would be on point for Loki to present more about the proposed paragraph he has in mind; he ought to be encouraged in this. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I invite you to read my responses to Loki and make an attempt to understand them, notably Continued diversions about the Iran War disagreement threaten to derail this discussion. This discussion is not about the Iran War, as I told you three days and many words ago. This is approaching disruption in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I've stated plainly that I'm in agreement with Loki on his stated position. If you are not in agreement with Loki and myself, then your repeating over and over your discontent with that and quoting disruption could easily be seen as a lack of your ability to accept that other editors on Wikipedia are not required to agree with you. I'm in agreement with Loki on his edit recommendations. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - as this article is about the person. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. However, I edited Aquillion's quote to make it more precise, so I believe we should use the below paragraph as part of the consensus items. Let me know what you think.
This article is about Trump as an individual, and is not one of the articles about Trump's presidencies. This article must only include key, overarching details about Trump's life, based on how he is covered and described in reliable sources, in accordance with the amount of focus that these details have received in high-quality coverage throughout his life; some of these details relate to Trump's first and second presidency, but these details do not include most of the specific events that occurred during Trump's presidencies. Specific events that lack high-quality coverage by reliable sources over an extended period of time do not belong in this article, but may belong in one of the articles on Trump's presidencies.
Bill Williams 22:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I can understand where ErnestKrause is coming from. I am concerned that the way this consensus will be applied in practice is to exclude new information, leaving existing stuff untouched. Reading through the political career sections from start to end, there is a very clear trend of compression. However, that is an argument for applying this proposed consensus rigorously to the whole article, including longstanding content. As long as that's how we'll proceed, I’m on board. Riposte97 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I think "this applies to existing content as much as new content" is implicit in any consensus. Those words don't occur anywhere in the consensus list to date. Article cohesiveness is a goal that goes without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreement with Riposte97; is not the consensus list becoming overly expansive to be productive of attracting new editors to editing the Trump biography. It seems that bringing up the issue of adding yet another consensus point now seems to miss the point that many of them from years ago might need to be reviewed and possibly removed from the list? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
You are the second editor in my memory to suggest that reducing list growth should be any kind of a priority for us. The first editor made a lot of noise for several days, was soundly defeated as a minority of 1, and has never been seen again around these parts. If I could remember the username, I'd happily link to that discussion. It was truly something to behold.
We have never removed list items; we like to maintain a history and that history is sometimes ~~helpful.~~ helpful. For example, if a comment in an archived discussion links to consensus 50, it would be great if that link actually went somewhere useful, such as consensus 50. If an item is superseded or canceled, we collapse it, which saves a little space. If you look at the list, you shouldn't see any gaps in the numbering; this is by design. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Edited after reply 23:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
For any one who is counting there are currently 27 superseded items, with obsoletes and canceled items in the list as well. The current list is too long, which does not help in gaining new editors to enhance the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Ha. Many "new editors" don't even look at the talk page before editing the article. Few of those who look at the talk page read the consensus list top to bottom. So how is its length something to get all wound up about?
The primary function of that list is corrective, not preventive. We didn't understand that when we instituted the list, but we learned it later by simply observing editor behavior for years. (That can be a royal we if you prefer.) BOLD, good faith consensus violations are a routine fact of daily life at this article, part of the cost of doing business.
Cf. "historical perspective"; funny how that phrase keeps cropping up in different contexts. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: this is about Trump the man.Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. My proposal was copied from a rough comment, whereas the others presumably involved some more careful thought and composition. Therefore I'll withdraw my proposal, reducing the options to three, thereby increasing the odds of a majority consensus in one round. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Support this is clear guidance in accordance with existing project guidelines that is useful for guiding the editing of a page this long. If the pages for other presidents violate this then either those pages should be editing to follow this principle, or the fact that they are not living and not currently the president is likely important. How other pages are written should have little weight for the consensus seeking discussion here.Czarking0 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Support - It's not like we don't have other articles for all the RECENTISM and latest mad thing. This article is about the man and should be written in encyclopaedic summary style. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Survey: Partial statement of this article's mission

Please !vote in this survey after reading the discussion. No changes or additions, please: the discussion phase has ended after 7 days. !Voting closes at ~~08:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)~~ 08:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 21:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of participants

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, Slatersteven, ErnestKrause, BasicWriting, Aquillion, LokiTheLiar, BootsED, GoodDay, Bill Williams, Riposte97, and Jack Upland: You previously commented in this discussion. Please !vote in this survey after reading the discussion. No changes or additions, please: the discussion phase has ended after 27 7 days. !Voting closes at ~~08:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)~~ 08:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 21:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 21:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Edited 23:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Second notification of participants

@Slatersteven, ErnestKrause, Aquillion, Jack Upland, and Czarking0: You previously commented in this discussion. Please !vote in this survey after reading the discussion. I pinged you here on 30 March and I'm repeating the ping since this is an especially important issue. No changes or additions, please: the discussion phase ended after 7 days. !Voting closes at 08:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 07:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A: No change, do not establish an explicit consensus on this topic. Alternatively, consensus 37 is enough explicit consensus.

B:

This article is about Trump as an individual, and is not one of the articles about Trump's presidencies. This article must only include key, overarching details about Trump's life, based on how he is covered and described in reliable sources, in accordance with the amount of focus that these details have received in high-quality coverage throughout his life; some of these details relate to Trump's first and second presidency, but these details do not include most of the specific events that occurred during Trump's presidencies. Specific events that lack high-quality coverage by reliable sources over an extended period of time do not belong in this article, but may belong in one of the articles on Trump's presidencies.

C:

This article is on Trump as an individual, not about Trump's presidency specifically. While notable moments of his presidency should be covered in this article in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, this is not the article for a blow-by-blow account of every comment or decision Trump has made as president. Place exhaustive detail about his presidencies in the dedicated articles for them.

B is more thorough than C. See the discussion for my opposition to A. Consensus 37's weakness results in part from being too short and therefore vulnerable to multiple interpretation and disagreement. We can't even agree on what "summary-level" means.
My philosophy: If something isn't working, learn from the experience and try something else. Repeat as necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
B per my comment above. Riposte97 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I vote A. While no one wants excessive detail, by the definition of that adjective, and thus the C wording is preferable to B, even a biography article should not display and order the relative importance of events by their duration, but by their impact on the world. Therefore, while not devolving into a news article, the primary focus of an article on a president should be their presidency and impacts thereof. BasicWriting (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
by their impact on the world, as crystal-balled by Wikipedia editors. the primary focus of an article on a president should be their presidency and impacts thereof. Not in a biography. We have two other articles for what you're describing.
(I don't care much about Wikipedia precedents, so don't bother. Not all Wikipedia precedents are good precedents, and over-reliance on precedents tends to stifle evolutionary improvement of the encyclopedia. When the Wikipedia editing community passes a resolution supporting your thinking, I'll reluctantly comply with it. It won't be passed on this page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
A survey is not a place for further discussion. Also, I am not sure how to interpret It won't be passed on this page generously; please beware of trying to own an article. BasicWriting (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
A survey is not a place for further discussion. That may be true, but this is routine at this article. Can't speak for elsewhere. I'm not aware of a community rule (P or G) saying we can't do it, and it seems to do less harm than good. Particularly if a !vote says something not said in the discussion phase, other editors should have the right to counter it. The main thing is to not alter the options after starting the survey.
I assure you WP:OWN is not a problem here; feel free to ask others who have been around for awhile. Also see the "2¢. IMO." in my signature; it's there for a reason. Everything I say is merely my opinion and subject to support, opposition, or apathy from other editors. It won't be passed on this page because community consensuses are better formed at the Village Pump (maximum visibility and maximum participation). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
And I do indeed respect your opinion. :) Thank you for contributing to this project! BasicWriting (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
B - will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
C > A > B. I like C (obviously, I wrote it) and think it covers the parts of this that are true and necessary better than B. I don't like B over the status quo, which already includes Consensus #37 which more or less covers this same ground, because it has extra wording that based on the initial discussion seems aimed at, in my opinion, over-correcting by preventing recent events from being covered in proportion to their due weight. Loki (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

A There will never be an end to disagreement among editors who want to add or remove something from the page, that's just the nature of editing. Consensus 37, which states "Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." adequately describes what option B does but in fewer words. Guidance on what summary means is already provided per WP:SUMMARY. If people are still confused even more specific guidance isn't going to help here. BootsED (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
The (my) point is that we shouldn't cling to something that has proven ineffective after years of trial. Are you happy with the current article in this area? I'm not. And I don't see competent editors, including you, doing much to address the problem (I don't count myself competent in this area). If people are still confused even more specific guidance isn't going to help here. How can you know that without trying it? What if people are confused because the guidance is not specific enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
A, seconding BootsED. Was the op-ed "do not establish an explicit consensus" really necessary? Could we add the text of #37 instead? I wouldn't oppose adding s.th. along the lines of this is not the article for a blow-by-blow account of every comment or decision Trump has made as president or add instructions like WP:TRUMPRCB for responding to editors who appear to misunderstand "summary-level" and "presidential legacy". Space4TCatHerder 🖖 18:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
B - Adding presidency material would bloat the article. Obviously if he cures cancer or detonates a nuclear weapon over Paris, an exception would be made. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
B. I wrote B because it is more thorough than C, and ensures that editors are complying with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:SUMMARY etc. We need to return to basic Wikipedia policy instead of bloating and editorializing this article. Bill Williams 06:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
A, then C because it's brief.-SusanLesch (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
A Fine as it is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Should the inclusion of any possible new consensus items indicate a sunset clause for expiration; this would have been useful to have in the past. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
That's never been done at this article, but it might be worth talking about. In any case, that's for a separate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
A, then C. There is no need to change, and I'm no fan of instruction creep where existing policy and guidance should already be sufficient. C is okay, as it is essentially a brief restatement of existing guidance, although it fails to specify that sources should usually be secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2026 (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.

[NewRepublic10.31.24-1] Ferguson, Malcolm (October 31, 2024). "Pageant Queen Shares Horrifying Details of Trump Sexual Assault". The New Republic. Retrieved August 21, 2025. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[2] Confessore, Nicholas (January 30, 2026). "Feds Release Document of Tips Mentioning Trump and Epstein". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 2, 2026.

[3] "What's inside the latest Epstein files released by the Justice Department". CNN. January 31, 2026. Retrieved February 2, 2026.

[4] Zanona, Melanie (January 31, 2026). "New Epstein files batch reveals new connections with powerful men". NBC News. Retrieved February 1, 2026.

[5] Eder, Steve; Bender, Michael C.; Enrich, David (2026-02-01). "How Trump Appears in the Epstein Files". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2026-02-25.

[FOOTNOTEKranishFisher201733,_38,_45-6] Kranish & Fisher 2017, pp. 33, 38, 45.

[FOOTNOTEBuettnerCraig202466-7] Buettner & Craig 2024, p. 66.

[FOOTNOTEKranishFisher201742-8] Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 42.

[9] ttps://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/otto-kernberg-ueber-boesartige-narzissten-es-haette-auch-andere-trumps-geben-koennen-a-41ce39c6-8659-44db-888d-83e683fa3140

[nyt-drops-10] Haberman, Maggie; Rappeport, Alan (September 16, 2016). "Trump Drops False 'Birther' Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It". The New York Times.

[NewRepublic10.31.24-11] Ferguson, Malcolm (October 31, 2024). "Pageant Queen Shares Horrifying Details of Trump Sexual Assault". The New Republic. Archived from the original on November 1, 2024. Retrieved August 21, 2025.

[VDEM_Report_2026-12] 1 2 "Democracy Report 2026 / Unraveling The Democratic Era?" (PDF). V-Dem Institute. March 2026. p. 33 In Focus: Autocratization in the USA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2026.
● Raw data presented at: "Country Graph". V-Dem Institute. March 2026. Archived from the original on 1 March 2026. (Choose "United States of America" and select "Election Democracy Index" and "Liberal Democracy Index".)

[VDEM_Report_2026-13] 1 2 Cite error: The named reference VDEM_Report_2026 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Bump-14] Bump, Philip (June 18, 2024). "Trump has unveiled an agenda of his own. He just doesn't mention it much". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2024.

[15] Garcia-Navarro, Lulu (January 21, 2024). "Inside the Heritage Foundation's Plans for 'Institutionalizing Trumpism'". The New York Times. Retrieved June 23, 2024.

[CNN_review-16] Contorno, Steve (July 11, 2024). "Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved". CNN. Retrieved July 11, 2024.

[myths_and_facts-17] Prokop, Andrew (July 13, 2024). "Project 2025: The myths and the facts". Vox. Retrieved July 17, 2024.

[18] Alfonseca, Kiara; Faulders, Katherine (December 9, 2024). "How Trump has infused parts of Project 2025 into his administration". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2025.

[:8-19] Popli, Nik (January 24, 2025). "Trump's Early Actions Mirror Project 2025". Time. Retrieved January 25, 2025.

[20] Colvin, Jill; Gillies, Rob (January 9, 2025). "Trump, the 'America First' candidate, has a new preoccupation: Imperialism". AP News. Retrieved January 28, 2025.

[21] Erlanger, Steven (January 7, 2026). "Europe and Rest of World Try to Come to Terms With Trump the Imperialist". The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2026.

[22] Datta, Monti (September 16, 2019). "3 countries where Trump is popular". The Conversation. Retrieved October 3, 2021.

[23] Wike, Richard; Fetterolf, Janell; Mordecai, Mara (September 15, 2020). "U.S. Image Plummets Internationally as Most Say Country Has Handled Coronavirus Badly". Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 24, 2020.

[24] "Rating World Leaders: 2018 The U.S. vs. Germany, China and Russia". Gallup, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2021 – via Politico. Page 9

[Jones-25] 1 2 Jones, Jeffrey M. (January 18, 2021). "Last Trump Job Approval 34%; Average Is Record-Low 41%". Gallup, Inc. Retrieved October 3, 2021.

[26] Bach, Natash (December 28, 2017). "Trump Is the Only Elected U.S. President Not to Be Named America's Most Admired Man In His First Year". Fortune. Retrieved November 19, 2024.

[27] Bach, Natash (December 28, 2017). "Trump Is the Only Elected U.S. President Not to Be Named America's Most Admired Man In His First Year". Fortune. Retrieved November 19, 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]