This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Television: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

	Other talk page banners

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

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

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

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

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

Word counts by paragraph and total.

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry I'm out of sync. Mercieca's introduction lists six strategies that Trump uses: argumentum ad populum, American exceptionalism, paralipsis, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad baculum, and reification . I never studied logic so am not the person to introduce this, but any section we title "rhetoric" that doesn't mention them has overlooked the obvious source.^[1] -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  Nasty   Dumb

• What happened to Truthfulness?

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

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

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

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

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

Political practice and rhetoric

Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism.^[2] Trump's political positions are populist,^[3][4] more specifically described as right-wing populist.^[5][6] He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream.^[7] Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding.^[8][9] His political base has been compared to a cult of personality often identifying with Trump's MAGA banner.^[a] Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative.^[17] Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities,^[18] and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump.^[19] Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy.^[20][21] The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.^[22][23][24] He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists,^[25] and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism.^[26]

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist.^[27] Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him.^[28][29][30] Before and throughout his presidency, Trump promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama birtherism, the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory movement QAnon, the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections.^{[31][32][33][34][35]}As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks^[36][37] to an extent unprecedented in American politics as if to impugn his own truthfulness.^[36][38][39] Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack.^[40] In June 2017, the White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements.^[41] After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020.^[42] In response, he tweeted that social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down".^[43] In the days after the storming of the Capitol, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms.^[44] The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events^[45][46] and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter.^[47]

Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press.^[48] In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage.^[49]The first Trump presidency reduced formal press briefings from about a hundred in 2017 to about half that in 2018 and to two in 2019; they also revoked the press passes of two White House reporters, which were restored by the courts.^[50] Trump's 2020 presidential campaign sued The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for defamation in opinion pieces about Trump's stance on Russian election interference. All the suits were dismissed. The Atlantic characterized the suits as an intimidation tactic.^[51][52] By 2024, he repeatedly voiced support for outlawing political dissent and criticism,^[53] and said that reporters should be prosecuted for not divulging confidential sources and media companies should possibly lose their broadcast licenses for unfavorable coverage of him.^[54] In 2024, Trump sued ABC News for defamation after George Stephanopoulos said on-air that a jury had found him civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. The case was settled in December with ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, apologizing for the inaccurate claims about Trump and agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump's future presidential library.^[55][56][57]

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

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

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

To SusanLesch, Riposte97 and DecafPotato; I've brought in Susan's request that both "MAGA" and "truthfulness" be brought into this 3 paragraph summary version. It looks like an improvement and I'll invite her to add more if she likes. In her words, "We need to start somewhere" in order to downsize this very large section from Trump vers. 1.0 (the first term). BootsED above appears to want to make no changes whatsoever to that section and to keep all 6 subsections currently there without modification. My point is still on the same issue, that the biography article for Trump needs to move forward from Trump vers. 1.0 to Trump vers. 2.0. Keeping the article with this very old section on Rhetoric from 2017, 2018, and 2019 seems like a poor alternative, especially when three editors seem to have some agreement that a shorter 3 paragraph version as posted above provides a reasonable alternative to the very long version currently there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there ought to be mention that Alnur Mussayev, ex-chief of Kazakhstan's National Security Committee, claimed that Trump was recruited by the KGB in 1987 and given the code name "Krasnov". https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-soviet-spy-makes-sensational-kgb-claim-about-trump/ar-AA1zxhrZ John Link (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is ZERO evidence that Trump, a narcissist with increasingly disintegrated mental acuity, was recruited by the socialist KGB 40 or so years ago, and that he is still on a mission – other than, of course, the testimonies of defectors, but it is crucial to remember that defectors are extremely unreliable and they make a living from espousing dubious claims. Saitzken (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saitzken: your (senseless) insult "a narcissist with increasingly disintegrated mental acuity" violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; you're practically inactive (only 4 edits), so be careful in the future. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue bringing that up is more irrelevant than it is BLP vio: Age and health concerns about Donald Trump gives enough citation. It is still not WP:DUE in this context unless the editor can prove the subject's relevance to the KGB. BarntToust 01:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: don't try to justify the user, the "increasingly disintegrated mental acuity" part is very offensive (Trump looks at least 10 years younger mentally); if they had referred to Biden would you still have defended the user? JacktheBrown (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown, you're trying to play a game of left versus right here and that's not relevant. If any subject was known for mental innacuity and an editor brought it up out of nowhere, I would remind them to check themselves on what is relevant to the particular discussion. BarntToust 11:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: but you didn't do it, I pointed it out to them. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You consider it BLPvio, I consider the supported, established information irrelevant. Eh, whatever. We were talking about a WP:FRINGE claim about Trump and the KGB? BarntToust 12:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My answer: Please see WP:DUE. I doubt this would qualify for any article, let alone this one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered by WP:RS, and we go by what they say. I think we should mention it in the article with proper attribution.

The Guardian, 4 years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book

Washington Post, 4 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/piling-up-incriminating-information-about-trumps-russian-connections/2021/01/28/a0b53b80-5029-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html

Kyiv Post: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630

Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-recruited-by-moscow-in-1980s-claims-ex-kgb-officer-report-101740303642133.html

Irish Star: https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/breaking-donald-trump-recruited-kgb-34727079

The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5162890-assessing-new-allegations-that-trump-was-recruited-by-the-kgb/

The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/13/trump-putin-secret-kgb-agent/

Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/inside-fateful-1987-trip-moscow-34731018

Daily Record: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/donald-trump-secretly-recruited-kgb-34731365

Economic Times: https://www.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/who-is-alnur-mussayev-the-former-ussr-kgb-officer-at-the-center-of-explosive-donald-trump-russian-spy-allegations/amp_articleshow/118489046.cms TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original heading: "Should Elon Musk's influence in the second Trump administration be briefly mentioned in the lead?" ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of Elon Musk's influence and access to Donald Trump, his takeover of federal agencies, DOGE, answering questions in the Oval Office, and now appearing at Cabinet-level meetings with Trump, should Elon Musk's influence at the beginning of the second Trump administration be briefly mentioned in the lead? A prior edit added this to the lead, which was then reverted. BootsED (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of request has come across whole slew of articles..... I take it this person is dominating the news in the United States right now? Moxy🍁 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News of the day. As stated in my edit summaries, the lead refers to three individuals—Clinton, Biden, and Harris—all in the context of presidential elections. I missed Kim, sorry; but Kim doesn't justify Musk. The point is that the names of many noteworthy and consequential individuals are omitted in the lead in the interest of lead size. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I honestly can't see a reason why exactly. I think a mention in the lead would look slanderous. Just my opinion. Rexophile (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentioning someone's name is slander? BootsED (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This information fits better in the lead of the Second presidency of Donald Trump article rather than here. --150.143.27.183 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, as this is not about his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article is not about Elon Musk. That information fits better in the article about the second presidency of Donald Trump. Herr Böna (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, WP:NOTNEWS. Cabinet meetings are typically attended by presidential-appointed Cabinet secretaries — this presidency has been atypical so far. Inviting the presidentially appointed non-administrator of the special commission formerly named "U.S. Digital Service" renamed "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), which is not a government department, seems par for the course. I haven't found any info on presidents inviting guests to the meetings. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as Musk has shown a clear influence on Trump round 2, and his influence has been described enough in RS. BarntToust 13:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Musk's influence in Trump's second presidential term (thus far) has generated much criticism and controversy in the United States and elsewhere, which has significantly impacted the overall perception of Trump's second term as a whole.

Wh4geiowehj (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: you reverted my edit that made the article's section on the Donald J. Trump foundation slightly more concise, saying it was "amounting to whitewash". Given that I mainly just made the wording tighter, kept all the sources the same, in fact removed several of the unnecessary instances of "alleged"/"possible"/etc., and kept in all original information except for the specific dollar amount of a single contribution from Vince McMahon, would you care to explain what it is I'm whitewashing? DecafPotato (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything close to whitewashing. It's mostly just copy edits with no change in meaning or loss of content. Unless they have any specific objections I would be okay with reinstating after a bit of time to hear from others. PackMecEng (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of whitewashing should not be thrown around liberally. There was no content lost in your edit and I support its reinstatement. Riposte97 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DecafPotato:

Your text:

• In 2016, media reports claimed that the charity may have committed legal and ethical violations, including alleged self-dealing and tax evasion. Media reports: It was a Washington Post investigation, and it won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. Claimed: MOS:SAID — calling the credibility into question. May have committed: WaPo reported that it did, and we attribute the report to WaPo.
• without allowing required external audits. Trump had failed to register the foundation with the state as a charity soliciting money, as required by law, thereby avoiding the annual audits.
• Trump said the foundation would be dissolved in December 2016[16] and it ceased operations and disbursed its assets to other charities two years later. Sounds as though Trump did the ceasing and disbursing voluntarily but that wasn't the case. The AG's office had blocked him from doing so to preserve the foundation's assets and documents. Trump agreed to the dissolution as part of settling the NY AG's lawsuit. Trump also admitted that he had used the foundation to pay fines and legal bills, make campaign donations (Pam Bondi), and coordinate campaign events. The court ordered him to pay $2 million in damages and the remaining $1.7 million in foundation assets to nonprofit groups without a connection to him or his family.

IMO we can remove this sentence: Trump's team announced in December 2016 that the foundation would be dissolved. The last three sentences are a bit confusing; I'll work on them tomorrow. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like mostly just small edits that you would be looking for. Not straight up white washing. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(What happened to this discussion? It was gone the last time I looked for it, and now it's back.) "Trim amounting to whitewash" — I didn't say it was intentional. I'm still looking at sources. Vince McMahon: that may actually have been the WWE paying Trump's fee for Wrestlemania 23, i.e., not reported as income. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OneClickArchiver archived the wrong section and I failed to catch it. It was called to my attention 20 hours later and I reversed the archival. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a trumpist. I'm social-democrat. I support both Palestine and Ukraine and also i think we should protect the nature and stop global warming. And i know for what he's hated: Covid, protests, january crimes. But his presidency isn't over yet. And i feel like if during his time current wars stop. Or at least one of them: Ukraine/Palestine. He will be remembered better. Should we keep that he's one of the worst presidents? But what about Biden? His approval was even worse than Trump's. Hell, Willson showed clansman in his office. Are you sure Trump is among the worst?Akaan327 (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings are attributed, vaguely, though I would prefer more direct attribution in the lead. The statements themselves aren't wrong due to attribution, but without attribution, it wouldn't be fit. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DarmaniLink: "The statements themselves aren't wrong due to attribution, but without attribution, it wouldn't be fit." Exactly, +1; it would be like writing that Biden is the most warmongering president in US history (probably false), an attribution to this statement would be necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeks to supersede current consensus item 54. See discussions linked there. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the opinions of scholars and historians. Overall approval ratings are not relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Scholars and historians' are not a monolith. Not necessarily against inclusion, but can someone explain how much utility this statement has in the absence of any stated qual/quant methodology? Riposte97 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t quantify “worst” across four years of presidential actions. That would require people to assign a numerical value to every action - whether positive or negative. That’s impossible to put everything on one scale.

The methodology is in the sources or has been explained by those scholars elsewhere. Wikipedia’s job is not to republish research just to convince you that it’s accurate. You’re free to click through sources, read up on them, and if you really do think the methodology used is poor, bring them to this talk page for discussion. But no, we will not be repeating the methodology/decisionmaking of those scholars and historians in the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on every point. A quantitative analysis could be conducted using certain parameters, but that's beside the point. My question was not whether the statement was accurate. My question was whether there is any utility blithely saying 'he's the worst' without telling readers why. 'Worst' by itself is a functionally meaningless adjective. I see you have misinterpreted another editor in this thread, so my advice to you is to tone it down, and read more carefully. Riposte97 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but our job isn't even to convince people that it's accurate. Its to provide information without bias and provide the sources, allowing our readers to decide the veracity for themselves. We aren't educators. We're just editors. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Our information needs to be encyclopaedic, though. For example, a Roman emperor rates 'worst' by historians might be terrible because of caprice or incompetence - a reader would expect to be informed which. Trump usually loses points for challenging norms. That's highly relevant to assessments of him. Riposte97 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even go as far as to say that we're explicitly not educators, and the sole purpose of attribution is to allow readers healthy skepticism. I do think that more direct attribution would be needed though, and just vaguely saying "scholars and historians" is a massive disservice to our readers and our credibility. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are overall approval ratings not relevant? I could start a search and choose a sufficient number of historians and scholars who don't claim that Trump is among the worst presidents in US history, and I'm sure you wouldn't include them so as not to change the sentence. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It summarizes the Donald_Trump#Scholarly rankings section of the article; the lead is supposed to summarize the body. And broadly speaking Wikipedia has a WP:ACADEMICBIAS, so it's not surprising that we would focus on what academic and experts say about him. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they relevant? Probably - but not for the lead in my opinion. The public is notoriously dumb. Many people do not look more than an inch in front of their nose, so to speak - much less a foot or mile in front of their nose. The approval rating with the public, in other words, is not correlated to the actual legacy of the policies implemented. It’s a symptom of the “I know better than the experts” thing that gave us Ivermectin fanatics during COVID, for another example. The public thinks they know best, until the prices of eggs goes up because the President gutted the USDA’s ability to track and mitigate avian flu. They think they know best about military posture until we get attacked out of nowhere in Pearl Harbor. These are all just examples of where public sentiment is still with the President’s actions during the time period, yet they are widely accepted by people who actually think about it (whether as their job or through critical thinking discussions with friends) as horrible choices. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion and berchanhimez, you're so focused in your answers that you haven't noticed that I'm referring to the research of historians and scholars who don't think Donald Trump is among the worst presidents in US history. Nobody refers to the opinions of the public! JacktheBrown (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally said “overall approval ratings”. That has only one definition - opinion polling of the public. There have been 4 years in which people have compiled scholarly and historian opinions of Trump in the section Aquillion mentioned. If you have something to add there, feel free to bring it up for discussing here. Otherwise, it does no good to suggest that they may exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: I was referring to the overall approval ratings of historians and scholars, in the sense of making an accurate statistic on ALL their opinions on the matter. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would come very, very close to WP:SYNTH territory, if not barrel past it. Wikipedia does not “make… statistics”.. we report what reliable sources have said. So unless you can find a reliable tertiary source that has compiled the opinions and formed their own statistic, we cannot pick and choose our own sources to try and make a statistic ourselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the section I explained that it's summarizing, you'll see that it lists a bunch of surveys of historians; ie. we're summarizing the overall opinions of historians as a whole. If you have broad surveys from independent unbiased reliable sources that have other results we could discuss them, but otherwise, highlighting individual historians that dissent would probably be WP:UNDUE given that the existing sources establish that they're a tiny minority. That is how such rankings by historians work; we have similar rankings on every other presidential page. The purpose is to present the broad consensus of historians, not every single historian; and at least the sources we have available do indicate that there's a broad consensus on his first term already. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides approval, as a history student i know it's hard to rank a recent president since we can't see longterm effects of his term. Akaan327 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaan327: exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to start an RFC for removal, I would gladly support knowing what I know now. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, being a history student doesn't make you a reliable source. Our article doesn't say "worst president". It says "one of the worst", and that's justified by Trump being ranked 41st out of 44 and 43rd out of 45. As others have already pointed out, the articles of all U.S. presidents mention the scholarly rankings in the lead; the leads of Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, and Millard Fillmore also say "one of the worst". You can look up the methodology used in the surveys in the cited sources (C-SPAN, Siena College, APSA). C-SPAN usually conducts their survey after a change in administration, so we can expect a new one this year; Siena College's should follow next year, after a new administration's first year. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second presidency -> foreign policy section needs a sentence on tariffs. I took a stab at one but was reverted. If anyone else would like to try to take a stab at it, feel free. Having nothing about tariffs in there is certainly missing a big piece of his foreign policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit changed

In 2023, Trump was held liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. In 2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records in criminal court, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris, Trump was sentenced to a penalty-free discharge, and two other felony indictments against him were dismissed.

to

He later faced multiple legal cases, including civil judgments for defamation and business fraud and a criminal conviction of falsifying business records. Despite these legal challenges, he won the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris and returned to office for a second term.

with the editsum "trim". I reverted. Then another editor, Gluonz, partially reverted my edit, again removing the disposition of the criminal cases and adding "returned to office for a second term":

He won the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris and returned to office for a second term.

The information that the election led to the penalty-free sentence and the dismissal of two pending felony indictments seems leadworthy to me while "returned to office for a second term" is redundant. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: No objection to restoration of that material. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed mention of Trump's civil cases in the lead. The lead is currently far too bloated and this topic has received far less news coverage than anything else in the lead (hence not WP:DUE) and it has less wording in the body than almost anything else from Trump's first and post term. His criminal convictions received the vast majority of media focus with regards to his legal troubles, and "held liable in civil cases for sexual abuse" is WP:BLP sensitive considering 90% of readers will think this is the same as a criminal conviction and there is no space to explain the nuance in the lead.

I also added his actions in his second term that were mentioned in the body (on DEI/affirmative action and illegal immigration), as per WP:SUMMARY. I removed the mention of his pardoning of January 6 rioters because it's neither DUE (receiving little coverage because it came after Biden issued controversial pardons) nor SUMMARY since it's a single sentence in the body. I was reverted by BootsED but I think this is worth discussing. Wording like "clamped down on illegal immigration" is accurate (drop from 2000 at the end of Biden to 100 at the start of Trump for daily illegal immigrant crossings without deportation) and is DUE as seen by a basic Google search of "clamp down," with many more results shown by Googling "clamping down" or "cracking down" or "crack down" or "crackdown." This is not controversial wording, it's been used by every single major media outlet in the past month. Bill Williams 00:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His cases are specifically labeled as civil cases in the lead, I don't think people will confuse them. Keeping mention of them has been heavily discussed already. Also, mentioning individual EO's is not practical, as what makes one more important than the other is a matter of opinion and will cause never ending arguments. All we need to know is that he passed a lot, and many were challenged. Mentioning a mass pardon of 1,500 Jan 6 rioters on his first day who attempted to overturn the prior election, several of whom were leaders of violent hate groups, is much more notable than Biden's preemptive pardons of a dozen individuals and his son. Saying "clamped down" or "crackdown" is WP:PUFFERY and loaded language. We should not copy news articles and use such language here. BootsED (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim Trump's Jan 6 pardon is "much more notable" yet the media covered it the same and that's now WP:DUE works, not because you think it's more notable. Further, his executive orders got far more coverage (and are covered more in the body of this article, hence why I said WP:SUMMARY) than the Jan 6 pardons. There's zero reason to have them in the lead of the article. Bill Williams 09:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he/she have something against Trump . Look at his/her history its full pro-democratic party activism and anti republican propaganda. 103.165.29.186 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC) — 103.165.29.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

90% of readers will think this is the same as a criminal conviction - Citation needed. We don't make content based on our worldviews. There is a lot of "nuance" omitted from the lead by necessity, and we shouldn't write the lead with the assumption that readers will leave when they reach the end of it, even if that often happens. The lead comprises four percent of the article and the other 96 percent was written to be read. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DN (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about the content matching a worldview. It's about WP:BLP and Trump being a living person, it's sensitive to include damaging information in the lead. The vast majority of people due not understand the discrepancies between a sexual assault conviction and a sexual abuse judgement. It is also not notable compared to literally everything else from his first and post presidency that's in the lead, so why is it getting a a large presence there? This lead is already more bloated than any other president, and this only makes the problem worse. Bill Williams 09:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people due not understand the discrepancies between a sexual assault conviction and a sexual abuse judgement. You did it again. Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JacktheBrown, I see you reverted this edit here. Personally, I'm fine with saying that it was according to legal experts, but just because a legal expert says that what Trump did was likely illegal does not automatically make them an "administration critic". This sounds like a violation of MOS:LABEL. BootsED (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a minor issue with it too. While sure, he's getting criticism from people with an agenda/bias against him... he's also getting a significant amount of criticism from unbiased or even GOP/right wing historians/experts. So to add the text and experts critical of the new administration seems to minimize the criticism to just be from people who are critical of him, when it's not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: no, the addition doesn't minimise anything; on the contrary, since the sentence currently includes both slightly more biased criticism and slightly less biased criticism, the addition provides a much more general and accurate picture, which is what Wikipedia tries to do (see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the same criticism is being levied by both biased and nonbiased sources, it is not NPOV to explicitly call out that some of the people making that criticism are biased. That is an attempt to minimize the criticism. Non-biased legal scholars, including many from GOP/right wing backgrounds, have made the same criticisms that his early orders have violated laws or the Constitution. So there is no need to point out that biased individuals are also making those criticisms - that's expected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: even "expected" things should be illustrated. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they're being used to violate NPOV. If, for example, the scientific consensus is that vaccines don't cause autism, we don't need to say that "pro-vaccine advocates" say that. In this case, the academic/historical consensus is that the actions violate the law and/or Constitution - and that is a consensus that is still true when you remove the "biased" people. As such, it is not NPOV to attempt to sow doubt as to the veracity of that consensus by saying that critics say it. It's a consensus either way. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to critics, Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election. According to critics, Donald Trump made false claims of 2020 election fraud. According to critics, Trump promoted a Springfield pet-eating hoax. Using the term "critics" serves to minimize and delegitimize in a similar matter as WP:CLAIM does. It is also a violation of MOS:LABEL. We should not use the term "critic", especially since anyone who says anything that Trump doesn't agree with is automatically a "critic". BootsED (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically ambiguous as written.

Parse 1:

according to American legal scholars and experts critical of the new administration

Parse 2:

according to American legal scholars and experts critical of the new administration

Who's critical? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's worded to reduce ambiguity, it is not necessary to say that some people critical of the administration are criticizing it. The opinions stand even when only including less biased or even right-leaning scholars/experts. And as such, pointing out that critics are critiquing is an attempt to sow doubt over the veracity of those critiques. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of opposition is not support. No opinion besides the grammar. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: regarding this edit, there is no consensus for this addition and this isn't the appropriate article for it - it would be better discussed in the Cabinet or Administration articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was added today by BootsED. I support the addition for now with regard to the possibility of DUE. It's unclear why it isn't appropriate, while the title is "Personnel, 2025–present", and the majority of it is only about Musk and DOGE, almost exclusively. That may be a bit POV. I will follow BRD and wait to see if there are any others that also object to it's inclusion for now. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be appropriate to reduce the amount of information about DOGE, but either way this proposed material is about the administration and not Trump's biography, which is what this page is supposed to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section is titled "Personnel 2025-present", in reference to his administration. If you also take out the stuff about Musk and DOGE, it's not really an improvement IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a look at the section on his first cabinet from 2017-2021. I will say, despite sources saying his previous cabinet was also the "wealthiest in history", there is no mention of it there either, so DUE likely isn't an issue here. My concerns over POV regarding only mentioning Musk and DOGE have been somewhat tempered by the fact that we are still very early into the administration, and there may just not have been much else being reported regarding the rest of his personnel. At this point I will withdraw my objection, until better arguments for it are made. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I included this bit as it fits in with the wider discussion of his personnel in his second administration. The personnel section in his first term also talks about his personnel's high turnover, so mentioning his appointment of 13 billionaires also seems relevant and due for a mention, especially as it is one of the wealthiest cabinets in modern history per the source. A lot of the personnel section in his first term probably needs to be trimmed regardless. BootsED (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the sources and there aren't many that discuss it compared to the first term. I'm still kind of on the fence about it. DN (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources that cover this, see 1, 2, 3, 4, for instance. I only used one source to avoid overciting this point. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the only ones I could find as well. Not that those sources aren't RS, but as far as the weight of the claim, what about historians or scholars? Anything on that front? If it can be presented as a historical fact rather than opinion by news outlets, it would seem less like a factoid. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article from his first term says historians said his first cabinet was the wealthiest in history, and this one from his second term says historians said he was on track to beat his first record. This ABC news article says in his second term he "assembled the wealthiest presidential administration in modern history", although it does not say that historians said it. BootsED (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: regarding this edit: it certainly isn't necessary, and the previous discussion did not find consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention in the article about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? The two were friends for years, Trump's name appears in his flight logs, and some of Epstein's victims were introduced to his circle in Trump's Mar-a-Lago.

As noted in the archived discussion on the same topic, the article on Bill Clinton mentions his dealings with Epstein in the opening paragraphs, and devotes a whole subsection to their relationship. The fact that Epstein is not mentioned even once in Trump's page to me seems like a flagrant double standard. TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are many famous people's pages on Wikipedia that need these additions. Akaan327 (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is probably due for the body. Riposte97 (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as per TKSnaevarr. A treatment of Epstein similar to that in Clinton's article seems warranted. Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still opposed — this was discussed two weeks ago. BTW, I cleaned up the section in Clinton's article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as people like guilt by association in real life, that does not mean it is encyclopedic to report on associations with bad people. Merely being friends with someone who was a bad person is not due weight, and as others have said, there are BLP implications too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not due weight, then why is there such prominent coverage in the articles for Bill Clinton and Bill Gates of their Epstein associations? I'm only asking for consistency. If it's notable that they were friends with Epstein, there's no reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be considered notable for Trump.

Trump's connection with the Epstein case also goes a tad deeper than just being friends with him, notably in that Virginia Giuffre allegedly was introduced to Epstein's circle while working at Trump's Florida resort, and that Alexander Acosta, who gave Epstein the favourable plea deal in 2008, later became secretary of labor in Trump's first administration and resigned after Epstein's 2019 arrest. These events are clearly of public interest and relevant to Trump. TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are not this one. Furthermore, it's not about "notable". It's about due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's article is shorter than Trump's, and Clinton's dealings with Epstein were subject to right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories. Some of that appears to have ended in his WP article. I've removed Epstein's mention from Clinton's lead and the innuendo from the body. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, I also disagree that adding a section on Epstein would be giving it undue weight for Trump's article. This is quite a long article, and I'm not advocating that a chapter on Epstein take up half of it. As I noted, there's more to it than just Trump having an acquaintanceship with someone disreputable. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "more to it" consists of "someone who was victimized by Epstein worked for him indirectly" and "someone who was doing their job as a prosecutor was given a job by Trump in his administration". Neither of those are "more". Those are simply guilt by association, but with more middle bits. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one insisting that including this information would be projecting some manner of guilt onto Trump. I am simply advocating that it should be included, regardless of whatever conclusions people draw from it. And while the coverage of the Epstein ties in the articles on Clinton and Gates may not automatically mean it should included in the Trump article, the total omission of it gives the appearance of political bias. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it is okay for Epstein to be mentioned briefly, especially in the context of his relationship with Donald Trump, but it shouldn't go into too much detail on that subject, as this is Trump's article, not Epstein's. HappyChug7Bhapig (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous posters. 2603:8000:1801:6500:F4E4:777:A020:500C (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president..."

Should we remove "previously"? Wh4geiowehj (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, the current sentence is not grammatically correct HappyChug7Bhapig (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That word is not in the first paragraph now, nor was it at the time of your post. I don't know where you're seeing that, but you may be looking at an old revision of the article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the details of Trump's career need to be elaborated . Hgwaoieoihfaihwegioawhegwo (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you link to a "Visit Croatia" UK site? Also, this article already needs to be trimmed. Further details of Trump’s careers can go in each of his careers’ pages. GN22 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the 'second presidency' section, the article states that Trump is "...the first president with a felony conviction..." However Trump pardoned himself shortly after assuming office, so should the sentence be reworded to "...the first president to enter office with a felony conviction..."? 8astraid7zzzz (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, he has NOT pardoned himself. Pardons granted by the president can be accessed at the "Office of the Pardon Attorney" at justice.gov/pardon CreativeNightPainter (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Political Practice and Rhetoric" section, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide a link to the article "False or misleading statements by Donald Trump"? Kamiép861890 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Can we come up with a better section heading than "Racial and gender views", which validates the oft-invoked deflection that hate speech is just another valid opinion in our liberal democratic discourse?

I understand that we'll need to figure this out on the talk page, but are you also saying there was specific and explicit discussion and consensus relating to that header in the past, or just that it's longstanding and should remain in place until we can fix it? Under the current page sanction, unless I'm mistaken, there wouldn't be any particular reason to leave longstanding text in place except when an explicit discussion and consensus had been reached. At any rate, can we figure out a header that refers to Trump's speech and actions relating to race without treating them as opinions?

Proposals Let’s focus the discussion more directly on what goes into the article. Here are some of the suggested headings for this section (which is a subsection under "Political practice and rhetoric")

• Racial views
• Racism
• Racial incitement
• Appeals to racism
• Use of racist language
• Racist speech and action
• Racist speech and policies
• Racism plus an opening sentence that makes clear what the section is about
• Endorsement/Propagation of racist viewpoints
• Adding: Allegations of racism
• Adding: Allegations of racism and xenophobia
• Adding: Racism and xenophobia

Note that separate subsections can be made for one or more of these, if necessary.

Iu283y9trh (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "At any rate, can we figure out a header that refers to Trump's speech and actions relating to race without treating them as opinions?"

Your view that Trump's racial remarks are racist is an opinion. I don't see what you are actually trying to change here. GreaAmericanPatriot7624273483 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add details about Trump's 1st joint address to Congress in his 2nd term (which concluded a little over an hour ago) or would that be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS? GreaAmericanPatriot7624273483 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything noteworthy happen? Zaathras (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US representative Al Green from Texas, got removed from the House Chamber. But, that's likely not the first time for any member, in the history of addresses to joint sessions of Congress. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras in this edit, you reverted citing MANDY. I'm not really sure how that applies, seeing as the caveat to the statement seems to have been made at the time the criticised statement was made. Riposte97 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard denial, and also overdetail for this article that is already addressed in the Charlottesville article. Zaathras (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this when it originally started being removed/added a while ago (I don't know which one happened first, or what the status quo is), but I didn't have a strong opinion either way at that time. But I've come up with my thoughts. The following is a copy of the text (with the statement in it) with the important parts highlighted.

Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.[205] In a January 2018 discussion of immigration legislation, he reportedly referred to El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African nations as "shithole countries".[206] His remarks were condemned as racist.[207] He further stated "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally".

So, the question for me is why is this important to overcome MANDY. Well, it's important because in Trump's eyes, people misinterpreted one of his past comments to be a "moral equivalence between..." So, he thought he was making sure that his comments were clearly not misconstrued. The problem here is that this importance is unclear from the current text. The whole section is all out of whack in terms of chronological order - starting with a 2017 event, followed by moving to the 2020 event, and then this sentence in question being back to the 2017 event, then on to a 2019 event, etc.

So no, I don't really think MANDY applies. Clarifying your words in the moment is not the same type of denial that would happen after the fact. And I'd argue that including the fact some of his comments were considered racist without including that he in the moment attempted to clarify those claims is a BLP violation. People mis-speak - that's a fact of life - from minor uses of the wrong word/phrase, to full on freudian slips where someone says something they completely didn't mean, if they correct themselves in the moment, it's disparaging to not include that information when discussing the purported bad claim. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).