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".ErnestKrause (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

 Oppose This article is about Trump, not Musk; the information would be better placed in the second presidency of Donald Trump. 71.24.240.137 (talk) 16:36, 6 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]

I'm not using my opinion as a source. I just point out that it's unfair to have president whose presidency is unfinished on the same line as the presidents who leaded hundred years ago. That's all. You shouldn't be a chef to know you're eating a fly. Akaan327 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His first term is finished. His second appears to be quite different and I imagine we will add a statement from historians and scholars when it is finished. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second. On the scholars ranking page it says i quote:"Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion." Which means that Joe Biden also has to appear on this list because of his even more terrible approval. Akaan327 (talk) 16:27, 7 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]

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

Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID.^[1] For the one month after Trump's USAID funding freeze in January 2025, the HIV Modelling Consortium estimated the HIV-related death toll in sub-Saharan Africa at 14,872 adults and 1,582 children.^[2] After a restraining order expired in late February, Trump put 2,000 employees on administrative leave.^[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, let's see what the consensus is.

Please just say

Yes or No

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID,^[1] resulting in more than 15,000 excess HIV-related deaths through February according to HIV Modeling Consortium estimates."^[2]
Yes or No. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• No. USAID doesn't just fund HIV projects, and unless we discussed the impact of every project they work on alongside their budgets I don't think it could be added without violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. satkara❈talk 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No Setting aside the issues with WP:NOTTHENEWS and WP:RECENT is this really important enough to justify inclusion in a large biography a about a celebrity turned politician? It seems preposterous that this trivial piece of news would belong in this article. I'm not even sure it's a big enough story to justify inclusion in a standalone article about the presidency. Nemov (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - This is not "trivial". This is a lot of dead people. We have articles on an action resulting in ten dead people. Surely 1,000 times as many deaths, and vastly more to come, is DUE. Indeed, for a standalone article when the full impact of the death of USAID is apparent. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There are considerable issues with the sourcing that fails to meet the high burden of inclusion of such heavily contentious and charged material in this BLP. Leaving aside the problems of whether or not such a particular granular issue is due, this is sourced to an advocacy organization and the "tracker" is literally just an incrementing count that goes up every 3.3 minutes. N=N+1 is not remotely a strong enough source for inclusion of a claim of thousands of deaths caused. KiharaNoukan (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID,^[1] resulting in TENS OF THOUSANDS of excess HIV-related deaths as of DATE according to HIV Modeling Consortium estimates,^[2] and increasing the risk WORLDWIDE of exposure to INFECTIOUS VIRUSES AND BACTERIA.^[3]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump in fact could not pardon himself, because his conviction was a New York state conviction.

What he did do was drop ongoing criminal investigations into himself, which is not the same thing as a pardon. Loki (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The federal cases were dropped by the judges overseeing the cases, one prior to the election, the other after the election. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Department policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president. That's the reason Special Prosecutor Jack Smith asked the courts to dismiss the cases against Trump (the election-obstruction case in D.C. and the appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the classified documents case in Florida) without prejudice, i.e., theoretically the charges can be brought again after Trump leaves office in 2029. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:34, 10 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]

Definitely not notable enough for this article yet, Al Green being kicked out of the chamber isn't relevant enough. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The speech was one hour forty minutes, and it continued his summary and continuation of his critique of the Biden administration. He has had a follow-up news conference today, on the day after the address, and has used this to again further sharpen his critique and criticism of his view of the Biden administration. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point, or is this a White House press release? Zaathras (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on the only thing that was mentioned. Can you provide WP:RSes to show anything important and lasting from this event? Feeglgeef (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Trump wants a referendum to take place in Greenland for them to join the USA as a new state. Also, he is supporting his wife Melania to present a new bill for the protection of victimized individuals from deep fake AI generated "false-images" defamation on-line. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He's been saying stuff about Greenland for a while now, not very eventful.
• Most pieces of legislation aren't included on Trump's article, I don't see why we need to include a mention of a piece of legislation.
• Where are the reliable sources?

Feeglgeef (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the heading of this discussion from "WP:MANDY" to what this discussion is about, i.e., adding Trump's disclaimer to the current long-standing content. The latest previous discussions: November 2024, February 2024, June/July 2022, October 2021 Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[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]

It's not a BLP violation. We're describing the reactions to Trump's reaction — he looked at rally participants waving far-right, Nazi, and Confederate flags, brandishing weapons, and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and said that he condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides". The sentence Riposte added is from Trump's third statement about the Unite the Right rally three days later; in the same statement he again said that both sides were to blame and that there were "very fine people on both sides". We've discussed this several times. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the 'both sides' comment is explicitly included without the contemporaneous clarification. If I said 'Hitler was good at being evil', then chopping the statement to claim I just said 'Hitler was good' would be a clear BLP violation. That's analogous to what the article currently does. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both sentences would be struck under WP:V; see also Godwin's law. You were involved in the November 2024 discussion that ended in a consensus to not include, so why add the sentence four months later?. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Correcting myself — the sentence was added by another editor who believes to be one of the few non-idiotic wikipedia editors here. Mandy or not — if you think this detail needs to be included, then per NPOV the other details (the other statements Trump made in the same speech) will also have to be included, as well as his silence after the Tiki torch Nazi-style rally and his insistence on "both sides/many sides" being to blame for Charlottesville. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with that. It's the omission I have a problem with. Riposte97 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense to me. Looks like Mandy does not apply and could be seen as a BLP violation to not include the rest of what he said. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion, again and again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been challenged, and seems to have been overturned. Riposte97 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been overturned. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RfC is the best way forward here. Riposte97 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't agree with the consensus reached after a discussion that was open for three weeks from October to November last year? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To get wider participation than the same few editors that always decline adding the content, I assume. Why else would you call an RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wider participation — the discussion lasted three weeks, and this page has more than 4,000 watchers. That's a pretty big forum. Why else would you call an RFC? Oh, I dunno — supporting the losing side, 2:8? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was over seven years ago. Nothing has changed. With all that is going on in this article, this is a huge waste of editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, than should be an easy slam dunk, get over it you two. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

get over it you two I beg your pardon? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty reasonable to start an RfC in circumstances where it seems eminently possible that editors might choose to adopt new wording. Lots has been reassessed since the inauguration, including because RS have revisited certain things in reflecting on Trump's first presidency. I haven't revisited the older discussion, which I will do now, but from memory it was not as specific as adding a few words on Trump's caveat, which is how I intend to formulate the RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because RS have revisited certain things in reflecting on Trump's first presidency. My usual comment: please present the RS that have revisited this particular "thing" since the inauguration. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean pretty simple honestly.[7][8][9][10] All recent, all RS, and all talking about it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With Trump in his second non-consecutive term, his 2025 inaugural portrait is used in the infobox. Current consensus item #1 states that: "Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image", referring to the 2017 official portrait. Should the infobox contain the 2017 portrait or the 2025 portrait? ScarletViolet 04:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed at great length; see talk page archive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JacktheBrown added the word "significantly" to this sentence on March 3:

Version A. He and his incoming administration helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas alongside the Biden administration, enacted a day prior to his inauguration.^[1][2]

to read:

Version B. He and his incoming administration significantly helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas alongside the Biden administration, enacted a day prior to his inauguration.

I edited the sentence on March 6 with this editsum: "Ce — awkward. And who added WP:OP-ED "significantly". Not supported by source. "'Brett [Biden's negotiator McGurk] is in the lead,' Mr. Witkoff [Trump's envoy] said last week at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Florida, describing the working relationship. That description was deemed accurate by both camps.":

Version C. Trump and his incoming administration helped the Biden administration broker the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that was enacted a day prior to his inauguration.

JacktheBrown reverted my edit the next day with this editsum: "The previous sentence was better, the new one makes it seem like the Biden administration has worked harder for the ceasefire (remember: throughout his presidency the war has always been present)".

The cites are the same for versions A–C. Which version do we use per WP:IMPARTIAL? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for version A, so even without "significantly". JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetiongs! @Mb2437, please don't remove content sourced to 7 sources [11], thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All majority and significant minority views makes this a considerably less simple case. There is no due weight applied in just listing sources that opined x. Such issues are completely avoided by giving an unbiased, encyclopaedic account of events which happened, and will hold historical significance. Again, it's persuasive writing. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy nor opinions. If he takes Russia's side—as he did in the Zelenskyy meeting—then that should be abundantly clear to the reader from what he has and hasn't done. It is a much more complex case than x or y, especially when he's spent this whole weekend threatening Russia.[12][13][14] MB2437 16:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, content represented by the majority of sources is not "advocacy" or "opinions". You also have added unsourced content [15] and removed sourced content [16], which may led to other editors perceive your edits as not adhering to Wikipedia rules. No, he wasn't "spending whole weekend threatening Russia". Those objections are weak and are not based on Wikipedia rules, and the deletion of sourced content is against them. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Logical fallacies aside, listing events free of initial opinion is a backbone of neutral writing. He has now been described as changing his tone by several RS:[17][18][19] It would be undue to state one and not the other... Again, this kind of commentary does not belong in a BLP. MB2437 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

and focus on the facts
Not a policy-based argument

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

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

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

My edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Zelenskyy story has moved considerable past the discussion above... Zelenskyy has retracted his White House statement, European members of NATO are considering supporting him anyway but still have not given him money to compensate for Trump's halt to Ukraine aid, Ukraine is re-offering minerals deal to US, meeting between them presently being scheduled for Saudi Arabia [20], etc... All of these items are on RS with a simple Google search. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It was unique - and Mr. Trumps personal attacks against Zelensky continue, like today, with the international press still pointing to the incident in the oval office.[21] It has to be mentioned. Alexpl (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This news story has moved well past much of this discussion as in The New York Times current headline (3-11-25): "Ukraine Supports 30-Day Cease-Fire as U.S. Says It Will Resume Military Aid". This was followed in the article by the statement that: "The deal announced on Tuesday delivered new momentum to efforts to halt the fighting, with the ball for any truce now in Russia’s court, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio." The insults exchanged in the White House a week ago appear to be old news at this juncture. See this article: [22]. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donald Trump is now the second president to serve two nonconsecutive terms in almost 250 years of American history, but this currently isn’t mentioned in the lead section. Grover Cleveland’s article mentions in its lead section that he was the first to serve nonconsecutive terms and adds a footnote about Trump. Should we put that Trump is the second to serve nonconsecutive terms in the lead? GN22 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See this discussion and a couple of shorter ones (archive 187, archive 188). Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Thank you @Space4Time3Continuum2x! GN22 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just advertising for this discussion on renaming First Trump tariffs and Second Trump tariffs. Consensus so far agrees with a change but disagrees on what to. More thoughts appreciated! satkara❈talk 19:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, I merely included categories for Category:American education businesspeople and Category:American nonprofit businesspeople with the assumption they would not be reverted, since there was a good amount of information in the article that covered these, and User:Zaathras reverted these claiming Trump has literally nothing to do with these. I reverted them, explaining how he is, but User:Mandruss reverted it, pointing to the "Arbitration Remedies" on the talk. I originally did not see this until I made this discussion, since it only appears if you start one. Since I did not know what they were talking about I reverted back to my edit, and I got reverted again by User:Muboshgu, with the threat of having my account blocked, which I would not have expected, and felt undeserved and not exactly helpful.

Even though I have some responsibility to bear, and would like to take the time to aplogize, I still feel this was not entirely my fault, since I could not read what they were referring to, and this would've likely happened if you put yourself in my shoes. Nevertheless, I would've never expected this to escalate the way it did (I don't see that in other edit wars), and it was never my intention to harm the environment we share. I also thought that this was the same editor reverting twice, which probably compelled me to act unethically. I can only hope we can come to an agreement to restore back my edit (I can't see why we can't have these cats, I mean the chairpersons cat is there even though the mention is very brief), and that this will not happen again. Inpops (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Inpops: this would've likely happened if you put yourself in my shoes. Absolutely not. I would have considered that perhaps some other editors know more than I do, and I would have contacted them on their talk page for clarification. What I would not have done is what you did: edit war. You were 100% in the wrong in this matter, and your continued success as a Wikipedia editor will depend on your understanding and acceptance of that fact. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "wrong" you mean the fact that I continued to revert? Inpops (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's BRD, not BRRD or BRRRD or BRRRRD. There's only one R there, and that was performed by user Zaathras. If this doesn't make sense to you, you need to avoid contentious topics and high-profile articles until it does. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inpops, WP:3RR is a bright line that you were one step from crossing. Anyway, thank you for engaging in discussion.

Those categories you were adding are not defining of the subject. Is the first because of Trump University? That was a scam. Didn't he use his nonprofit in an illegal way as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Just wanted to make sure. I guess I don't commonly see articles for successful businessmen engage in this sort of behaviour. Inpops (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they had no applicability to the subject. Categorizing someone as an "education businessman" who is fervently trying to dissolve the Dep't of Education is like placing Al-Qaeda in Category:Urban renewal. If the second cat is in regards to the DJT Foundation, which was dissolved as a fraudulent scam, then he never actually created or operated a nonprofit at all. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump "University" was the scam that defrauded its customers. Trump settled the lawsuits against him by agreeing to repay $25 million. The Donald J. Trump Foundation wasn't registered for seeking charitable contributions from others and used foundation funds for private expenditures such as legal fees, fines, political campaigns. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Continuing to review sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone should add his on screen feud with Vince Mcmahon 2604:A900:B80F:0:68F2:DC7:C313:ABDB (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE is scripted reality television. So, no. Zaathras (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using a black and white image for the lead? Isn't there a color version of that same portrait? ~ HAL333 02:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only B&W image in this article is is cadet picture in the "Early life and education" section. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 13 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).