Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019) Strikethrough July 2025. Per WP:EDITREQ, edit requests are not for things that might require discussion. Per WP:CONLEVEL, local consensus may not override community consensus.

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019). Consensus on "racially charged" descriptor later superseded (February 2025).

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. See #44. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. Superseded by #71

The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021) The consensus carries forward to "Official portrait, 2025" in 2025.

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Superseded by #70

Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item. Suggested closure for copy-and-paste:
   {{atop|Please read [[WP:TRUMPRCB]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}}
   [existing thread]
   {{abot}}
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

69. Do not include the word "criminal" in the first sentence. (January 2025)

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

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

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

71. Supersedes #44. Omit from the lead a mention of the Trump–Kim meetings of 2018 and 2019. (April 2025)

72. Omit from the lead a mention of the January 6 pardons. (RfC July 2025)

Internal consistency

This article generally 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.

1. Use American English, per the {{Use American English}} template. A good American English dictionary is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{Use mdy dates}} template.
3. 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.
4. To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
5. Use unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash (" – "). Do not code the actual em dash character (which can be ambiguous in the code) or the {{emdash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource). Instead, code the HTML entity —.
6. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
7. 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}}.

1. |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
2. 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]].
   1. There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
   2. 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.
3. Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
4. 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.
5. In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP Fact Check:", not "AP FACT CHECK:".
6. 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=.
7. Omit |language= for English-language sources.
8. Omit |publisher= for news sources.
9. Omit |location= for news sources.
10. Omit |issn= for news sources.
11. 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:
    1. Improved readability.
    2. Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
12. 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 (the changes, not the editors:). For example:
    1. Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
    2. For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    3. The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.
13. There is currently no convention for the use of named references.

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total. Click [show] to see weeklies.

01 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

08 Oct 2024 — 627 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 112 + 121

15 Oct 2024 — 629 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 135

22 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

29 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

---

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 029 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 046 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 043

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 062 + 076 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 056 + 070 + 138 + 142

---

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 053 + 064 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 054 + 062 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 058 + 057 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 058 + 057 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 087 + 060 + 154 + 164

---

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 058 + 060 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 058 + 060 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 046 + 060 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 047 + 084 + 155 + 135 + 071

---

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 044 + 082 + 162 + 147 + 026

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 044 + 079 + 154 + 141 + 057

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 044 + 081 + 154 + 178 + 045

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 138 + 045

---

04 Mar 2025 — 457 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 053

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 043

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 129 + 043

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 128 + 043

---

01 Apr 2025 — 458 = 040 + 087 + 171 + 114 + 046

08 Apr 2025 — 493 = 040 + 104 + 167 + 128 + 054

15 Apr 2025 — 502 = 040 + 101 + 158 + 128 + 075

22 Apr 2025 — 495 = 040 + 110 + 159 + 128 + 058

29 Apr 2025 — 522 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 082

---

06 May 2025 — 534 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 094

13 May 2025 — 530 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 063 + 090 + 065

20 May 2025 — 529 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 068 + 064 + 088 + 065

27 May 2025 — 528 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 050 + 064 + 087 + 083

---

03 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

10 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

17 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

24 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

---

01 Jul 2025 — 545 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

08 Jul 2025 — 530 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 077 + 083

15 Jul 2025 — 538 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 085 + 083

22 Jul 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

---

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit. Click [show] to see weeklies.

01 Oct 2024 — 15,811 – 414,704 – n/a

08 Oct 2024 — 15,823 – 414,725 – n/a

15 Oct 2024 — 15,824 – 415,035 – n/a

22 Oct 2024 — 15,873 – 420,021 – n/a

29 Oct 2024 — 15,822 – 421,276 – n/a

---

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

---

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

---

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

---

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

18 Feb 2025 — 11,180 – 339,836 – 247

25 Feb 2025 — 11,213 – 343,445 – 242

---

04 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

---

01 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

08 Apr 2025 — 11,334 – 356,921 – 217

15 Apr 2025 — 11,443 – 363,611 – 175

22 Apr 2025 — 11,397 – 361,630 – 180

29 Apr 2025 — 11,344 – 361,732 – 180

---

06 May 2025 — 11,537 – 365,243 – 171

13 May 2025 — 11,565 – 365,873 – 171

20 May 2025 — 11,574 – 366,310 – 171

27 May 2025 — 11,636 – 369,056 – 164

---

03 Jun 2025 — 11,678 – 369,696 – 164

10 Jun 2025 — 11,758 – 370,645 – 163

17 Jun 2025 — 11,705 – 370,943 – 160

24 Jun 2025 — 11,650 – 369,162 – 162

---

01 Jul 2025 — 11,622 – 368,483 – 163

08 Jul 2025 — 11,599 – 368,528 – 162

15 Jul 2025 — 11,843 – 373,664 – 152

22 Jul 2025 — 11,978 – 376,726 – 146

---

Note
Notes

RFC on lede organization for Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:21st-century American criminals

This tag should be added for consistency

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

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

Challenged. [1] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your challenge had a rationale of "no consensus".

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

five minutes later (not 8 days;

My mistake, I looked at a different edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention, please

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

Revisiting consensus on Jan 6 pardons in lead

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

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

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

Trump–Epstein

Original heading: "Agenda around Epstein?" ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

OK guys this is getting a little bit crazy.

Epstein and Trump have been together in the news nonstop for like what two weeks now? It's causing a rift in the MAGA movement and is objectively a pretty big deal.

Yet this article seems to have been completely scrubbed of any mention of ol Jeffy Epstein.

Whats up with that? Hard to say that Epstein isn't relevant to Trump at this point. The media coverage coverage and the schism in the movement alone justify a mention.

Or are we going to list everything going on in his presidency in fairly granular detail while completely omitting what has been a pretty major news story with some staying power?

Maybe it's not appropriate but I suspect some folks who are involved with the content on this page have an agenda to keep any mention of Epstein off this page.

If so that is shameful! I'd not then I apologize :) Necrambo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, if this were any other PERSON let alone PRESIDENT, it wouldnt even be a question to include it. Disgusting. JemT2000 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Don't do that again. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I've raised this point several times, going as far as to bring it to a community discussion, but every time the discussion just peters out without a definitive conclusion. The fact that Epstein isn't mentioned at all in this article, despite the fact that he is extensively covered in articles about people who arguably had less substantial dealings with him than Trump, remains a galling double standard.

To be frank, the reluctance of admins to allow mentions of Epstein in this article seems to me like an overcorrection against previous accusations that the article or Wikipedia in general carries an anti-Trump bias. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is whether this article should mention the Epstein thing. Why it currently omits that is irrelevant. Avoid commenting about editors' motives. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I too am baffled by the unexplained absence of any mention of the Epstein scandal on the page. While it is not currently confirmed whether Trump's name appears on the client list or not, it IS relevant to mention that he has declared the Epstein list to be a hoax on multiple occasions, and has been accused by his former "colleague" Elon of appearing on it. One of the things he campaigned on during his third run was releasing the Epstein files. All of this is relevant information, and all of it has been reported on by major news networks, so there is zero excuse for none of it to be mentioned on here. Alex the weeb (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Per arguments to date, I support up to three average-length sentences in the body. Including a link to the appropriate subarticle providing more detail. I oppose anything in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The issues maybe how to represent it, as wp:blp applies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As I see it (OR alerts), there are two versions. There was a list, and Trump is now lying. Or there was never a list, and Trump was lying. The problem is, we cannot know which of those is true. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to say which of those is true. We merely summarize the controversy per RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Which may well end up being way too big for what is an overview of what is (in reality) a recent controversy (well not his links to Epstein, but the controversy surrounding those links). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I said I support up to three average-length sentences. If that's not enough, I support nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:DUE to say something in this article about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, especially in light of the last week or two's developments. I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's article has a three-paragraph subsection on Epstein? Obviously we don't OTHERSTUFF things into existence here, but it is striking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: So would you go so far as to support a three-sentence limit? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we would limit ourselves to three sentences given the breadth of information out there, or why you're pushing for it while acknowledging you lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it). I say we draft some text here and see where consensus is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal poke, but I don't need knowledge of the subject matter to oppose overdetail in this article. We have way too much of that already, we don't need more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a "poke", but just a way of pointing out that this may need more detail than you might want. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If so, my support changes to oppose. I haven't seen many issues that couldn't be summarized/overviewed in three sentences, and I doubt this is one of them. Hell, I could summarize World War II in three sentences if I put my mind to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As good at concision as you may be, that'd be impossible. Back to this topic, Epstein's personal life section has paragraphs about Trump. It's probably UNDUE even for Epstein's bio. I oppose setting a limit on Epstein text for this article at this point because we don't know how far it all will go in the coming weeks, and we should see proposed text before supporting or opposing. But we can start with a brief paragraph of three-or-so sentences. If I have the time and energy, I may try to draft it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

that'd be impossible. Back to this topic - This is not off-topic. I'd say it's an important part of the question.

World War II (1939–1945) was an armed conflict between Nazi Germany, Japan, and their allies (the Axis Powers), and England, the United States, and their allies (the Allied Powers). It arose from Germany's and Japan's desires for expansion, and it saw the first and only use of atomic bombs in war. The Allied Powers were ultimately victorious, resulting in the division of Germany into two states until 1990.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Err, this has had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

What? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well unless you are trying to say "this is what we say about the impact of WW2, so why not mention this here", what were you trying to say by bringing up WW2? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm illustrating that even something as large as WWII can be summarized in three sentences, which Muboshgu says is impossible. If it's possible for WWII, it's certainly possible for Trump-Epstein. The idea that a summary would be useless in this article without details X, Y, and Z is an illusion. This article should be "Here's the general outline of the issue. Click for details." Many readers will choose not to click. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Then write it, and present it for critique. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As much as I hate repeating myself: I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. I generally subscribe to "If you want it done right, do it yourself", but I'm regrettably inadequate to this particular task. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That leaves a lot of important details out, but like I said summarizing WWII is off topic here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's the point. In this article, per current consensus item 37, it's supposed to leave a lot of important details out. Like many similar issues, editors here make two unproven assumptions:

• Most readers will be interested in the details.
• Most readers won't follow a link to a subarticle. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This shows it’s possible to summarise ww2(tho it was the Uk as a whole that was in the conflict not just England and the Holocaust should probably be mentioned in any summary.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. In Clinton's case, there was a whole conspiracy story to contend with. When I looked at the section in March, I thought about deleting all of it because it was one big NPOV violation. I thought better of it because it would probably have all been reinserted. It's now a section about what actually happened, mentioning some of the unverified reports. Somehow Trump escaped that treatment, despite e.g. the video of Epstein and him ogling the dancing cheerleaders at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump quote ("I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life") in the fawning New York magazine article in 2002. Meaning, anything we could have written would have been a trivial detail. That's changing now with additional details (Trump's bawdy birthday letter, the release/non-release/possible partial release of the "Epstein files", the reaction of the MAGA mob, and Trump's reaction to the reaction). It's a developing story, 'though, so WP:NOTNEWS applies. There's no rush. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I think it's important to consider the fact that although Epstein is not mentioned by name in this article, Donald Trump#Racial and gender views does include the following: "At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations."

Meanwhile, we also have a subarticle, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations which has a whole section on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which makes it clear that at least some of the women publicly accusing him of sexual misconduct are doing so in the context of his relationship to Epstein.

The current structure of our multiple articles about Donald Trump make it difficult for readers to navigate and find the information they may be looking for. However if we try to jam everything into this article it will be unwieldy. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. The sexual misconduct article is linked from the section on racial and gender views; but not as prominently as Racial views of Donald Trump which is listed as the main article. Meanwhile Racial views of Donald Trump does not mention anything about the sexual abuse allegations or Epstein (as it shouldn't - it would be off topic there). I don't think the sexual assault allegations or his relationship with Epstein are "views" so I think that is misplaced in that section of this article.

My proposal would be to split Donald Trump#Racial and gender views into two sections; one on racial views, and one on gender and sexuality. I will note that that section on racial and gender views does not discuss his views regarding LGBT topics, which I think are appropriately classed as "gender views" (especially his views on Trans people which have evolved from accepting during the 2016 campaign to openly transphobic now). I think it would be appropriate to have a section roughly equivelent in length to what is left of the current racial and gender views section that breaks out the stuff about his views on women and the sexual assault alegations and discusses it (perhaps with a more explicit mention of Epstein) while also incorporating information on his views on LGBTQ issues. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

section "Public image", subsections "Racial views" and "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct". Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So if no one can be arsed, can we close this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I can be arsed, just not at this exact moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been arsed since I was a boy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Its not clear what direction this Talk page discussion is taking; Trump has just authorized Pam Bondi to release the Epstein file. Should this Talk page discussion be re-done afterthat file is released by Bondi and its contents made open to the government and public? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Trump-Epstein should be summarized at a sufficiently high level that it's not impacted by every new play in the play-by-play. Up to three average-length sentences, which may change as the situation unfolds (i.e., the summary can be updated/reworked as appropriate, but there will probably never be a need for more than three sentences). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This insistence on a three sentence limit seems highly arbitrary and destined to provide an incomplete picture. A summary on the subject that adequately explains why it is relevant to Trump would at the bare minimum have to cover the following:

• Trump and Epstein having been longtime acquaintances.
• Trump repeatedly entertaining the notion of publicizing further material to Epstein's case, before deciding not to in 2025.
• The backlash from parts of Trump's base because of the decision.

Writing a summary with one sentence for each of those points would be an obfuscation in and of itself. It would omit things like a former insider in Trump's administration accusing him of being implicated in the files and personally preventing their publication. It would omit how in Trump's first term, a member of his cabinet resigned over his previous handling of Epstein's case (meaning it had material effect on Trump's government). It would omit the fact that Trump's club and part-time residence is alleged to have been the site for much of Epstein's criminal activity. It wouldn't even leave room for the more recent development of Trump suing WSJ over the salacious birthday letter.

While OTHERSTUFF may not be an inherent reason for a thing to be included in this article, for comparison's sake, the article Nathan Myhrvold devotes five sentences to the subject, and that's for someone whose dealings with Epstein were nowhere close to being of the same public interest as Trump's. The comparison highlights the absurdity of setting a three-sentence limit on how much the subject can be covered. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No, he hasn't authorized Bondi to release the Epstein file. He told Bondi to ask the court to unseal transcripts of Grand Jury testimony. Even if the judges grant the request, the material is going to contain only the evidence against Epstein and possibly Maxwell, i.e., the people prosecutors were going to prosecute, and it's going to be heavily redacted. This article explains it. Excerpt:

Typically, grand jury testimony is neither exhaustive nor fully granular in its detail. It would not include all of the investigative material the F.B.I. seized during its investigation of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, such as the trove of photos found inside a locked safe at his Manhattan townhouse after he was arrested. Instead, it is intended to provide sufficient backup to persuade jurors that there is probable cause that the person under investigation committed a crime. So the best preview of what the testimony might contain is the two indictments against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Those indictments have a narrow focus around Mr. Epstein’s paying underage girls to exploit them sexually, and Ms. Maxwell’s role in facilitating and sometimes participating in the abuse. They do not address Mr. Epstein’s finances or his extensive network of wealthy and prominent friends.

This is Trump's attempt to pacify the MAGAnauts who are upset that their "man on a mission to root out the left lunatic pedophiles" is not releasing the allegedly juicy rest of the Epstein file that Patel, Bongino, Bondi, et al, promised them. "Hey, I tried, but the crooked courts won't let me." Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this story going to lead to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction? If not, then it's not an overly important event, to include. GoodDay (talk)

By that logic, we might as well delete the whole article. After all, none of the events documented in it have led to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction. That's an absurd litmus to place on information being added. TKSnaevarr (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping a lid on being sensationalist or tabloid-like about the subject matter, but we can't just invent shit like "no impeachment means not important" to exclude material. Zaathras (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It might, but how could we know? Nobody here can predict the future --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I just find that it's only the news media, that's overly excited about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump seems plenty excited, the way he tried to bully the faithful into believing him and not their lying eyes, and, when that did not work, trying to placate them by asking the courts to unseal grand jury testimony in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell. See the above link to the NY Times article and the excerpt from it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There are currently 4 full sentences about this matter in the article, with the first sentence of that group being 4-lines long all by itself; that seems excessive coverage. Possibly the section on Epstein could be shortened or even significantly abridged for now, at least until Pam Bondi is able to try to get the file released by the court for everyone to see and to adequately assess. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to Donald Trump#Epstein file? That is something, but it is insufficient. We need to have detail on their personal relationship. Detail can be taken from Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, such as the federal lawsuit that was dismissed, or Trump's famous quote, I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life I'll try to draft something today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This was the pre-rewrite version, after I had removed Musk's opinion. "Friendship": the source says "spent nearly 15 years mingling side-by-side as public friends" — seems more "public relations" to me. The New York Times reported that those who knew them at the time said that they would frequently hit on and compete for young women is too close for comfort to the source (What seemed to draw them together, according to those who knew them at the time, was a common interest in hitting on — and competing for — attractive young women at parties, nightclubs and other private events, and Trump has been doing plenty of unwelcome groping all by his lonesome. MOS:EUPHEMISM, aka vagueness - a favorite of Wikipedians: controversial. The "visible fractures within his support base": remains to be seen. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also Trump retweeting a conspiracy theory in 2019, #ClintonBodyCount. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that pre-rewrite version is a good start. We should say that they were friends, they partied together, there were young women around them when they did, and then they had a falling out, allegedly over a real estate deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Allegedly. A second version: the authors of "The Grifter's Club", four Miami Herald journalists, write that Epstein had tried to solicit the daughter of a club member at the club, the member complained to Trump (i.e., the incident threatened his bottom line, unlike the solicitation of the club employee's daughter), and Trump barred Epstein. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't heard that allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Muboshgu, this is a the 2020 Miami Herald article about the book's authors saying that Epstein was a member of the club until 2007 and a club member telling them about the incident with another club member's daughter. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You keep repeating Trump talking points. See my above edit and the NY Times excerpt I added to it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Who decided this should occupy an entire paragraph of §Domestic policy, 2025–present? Trump knew Epstein from 1990 to 2004. This topic belongs in §Personal life (or §Business career if you insist it come earlier). I agree with ErnestKrause you've devoted entirely too many sentences to Ms. Bondi, the Democrats, and suicide. This is a biography of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This a prime example of the tangent trap I've been referring to, to largely deaf ears. A requires B, or so some editors think. B requires C, and A+C requires D. And so on. Editors simply do not know how to say less. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It should occupy that section because it’s talking about actions taken by this Trump presidency(and his current response to the allegations of .) That length seems fine and needed to cover those details. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The presidency section is exactly where it belongs. If Trump wasn't president and if his officials hadn't made certain announcements (first release coming up, then nothing to see here, move along folks), we wouldn't have the current - uh - excitement. The conspiracy theorists would still be theorizing on TruthSocial, X, and wherever, and the rest of us would be talking about tariffs and ICE raids. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@BootsED:, editors are currently working on updating this, and some here think the material belonged in the second presidency section. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Space4TCatHeder, I've updated the page Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with all the recent reporting and added a new section to this page which is a heavily truncated version of the main page. BootsED (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The only thing we need now is a picture of Donald Trump and Epstein together for the other page that could then be posted here. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have one of the many photographs of them together that are all over the media. We do have one for Bill Clinton and Epstein, apparently. BootsED (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Great! That works for me. Probably best to leave the dismissed lawsuit out of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The picture of Clinton, Epstein, and Maxwell was taken by the WH photographer at a WH event. It's in the public domain, so WP can use it. Trump was a private citizen during the 15 years he and Epstein palled around, so any pictures and videos are unlikely to be in the public domain. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Riposte97, I see you have reverted parts of my edit adding the Jeffrey Epstein section. You stated you thought there was too much information, and that you thought the section itself should be removed absorbed into the business section of the page. I re-added the edit pointing out that there exists an entire three paragraphs on Epstein's relationship to Bill Clinton at Bill Clinton#Relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, and that two small paragraphs on Trump's relationship to Epstein is thus warranted. You reverted this again, saying simply "challenged" and that the Bill Clinton page was "irrelevant".

While I disagree with you, I would still like to hear your reasoning for your edits and open this up for other editors to discuss. I believe that other editors here have already stated they wanted this section to exist, and agreed to some of the content that was added. For instance, Muboshgu stated he thought that information that they partied with young girls and had a falling out should be included. Currently, your edit simply says that they were friends, and doesn't mention their pursuit of young women which is the whole reason this friendship has received so much attention. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The Clinton article is irrelevant here. This article is not governed by editors of other articles. Unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing in policy that supports that kind of reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The Bill Clinton article is relevant because it's also another article about a United States president who had a well-documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Not sure how you can get more relevant than that. I never made any policy claim that one article controls another, but I and other editors here have simply pointed out the seemingly different standards applied to coverage between the two pages on the same topic.

Why should Bill Clinton's article, which is already very long, devote three entire paragraphs to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with extensive detail and quotes from relevant parties when he was more notable for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Why is Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein instead reduced to a small, one-paragraph mention of his friendship that now mostly includes Trump's rebuttal with no mention of why the friendship was controversial (partying with young girls)? Clinton had less contact with Epstein than Trump, so why does he have more coverage on his own page than Trump? And why are some now pushing for the entire section on Trump's relationship with Epstein to be removed or absorbed into other sections of the page? BootsED (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Because two wrongs do not make a right. This is an argument to remove it there, not add it here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It comes down to WP:DUE. I would think that including content on a relationship with Epstein is more DUE for Trump than Clinton, as Trump and Epstein partied with young girls and there is the (dismissed) lawsuit filed against them, while there are no allegations like that about Clinton and Epstein. The argument on this page needs to remain whether or not it's DUE to include the partying with young girls (which again, I believe it is). We can work to cut down the Clinton/Epstein section on that page if it's agreed UNDUE detail is given there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I would propose re-adding the sentence that they were known for partying with young girls, which provides context about why their friendship was controversial and notable other than simply "they were friends". I would also propose re-adding the sentence that they had a falling-out in 2004, otherwise the article suggests that the "15 years" could have been more recent than not. I included the quotations Trump and Epstein made about being "best friends" to better explain the topic, but I have no problems for these quotations to be removed if editors think this makes the page too long. BootsED (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake, my second version is the same as the first. You can edit it to simply remove the Trump quote and Epstein quote, which is what I proposed above. (Update: the post was reverted) BootsED (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Trump suing the WSJ, belongs & is listed in the related article Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Lawsuits filed by Trump with the other defamation lawsuits filed by Trump. I also added the client list conspiracy theory. How can we not mention that? I also don't see what this section might have to do with Trump's business career. Nothing in the sources suggests that they were in business together. I still think this belongs in "Second presidency" since Trump admin officials are responsible for the publicity, but "Personal life" is better than business. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

i agree with your edits but i think the WSJ thing should stay John Bois (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Versions

The five versions uploaded so far:

My first version:

After she and other Trump officials had for months teased the imminent release of incendiary information (the "Epstein client list") from FBI records of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, U.S Attorney General Pam Bondi stated in a memo released in July 2025 that there was no evidence that Epstein had such a list or that he had blackmailed prominent individuals. The memo also confirmed that Epstein had committed suicide while in custody. The announcement caused an uproar among part of Trump's most fervent supporters who had bought into the conspiracy theory that Epstein was at the center of "a cabal of powerful men and celebrities, largely Democrats" and that the government had covered it up. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax engendered by Democrats, and that supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".

BootsED's first version:

BootsED's first version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Epstein: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life." The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004. In a 2017 recording, Epstein stated that he was "Donald's closest friend for ten years." Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

Riposte97's version:

Riposte97's version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

BootsED's second version:

BootsED's second version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Epstein: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life." The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004. In a 2017 recording, Epstein stated that he was "Donald's closest friend for ten years." Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

My second version, uploaded a short while ago:

My second version

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced that the list would be released after review. In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed; the announcement also confirmed Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting another theory. The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the relationship. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".

Sources

Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Please edit my second version to remove the two quotes. It is currently the same. BootsED (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This evening once I have some more time I'll try to create a combined version of all the above proposals. Hopefully this will work and satisfy everyone. BootsED (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Rmv like this? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! BootsED (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The current content is far too voluminous. This doesn't deserve its own section - a couple of sentences at most. My suggestion would be:

Trump's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has attracted significant media attention. Trump's Justice Department appeared to contradict itself when it stated in July 2025 that Epstein had committed suicide, and did not keep a compromising list of famous pedophiles, contrary to prior statements. This reversal has attracted criticism from within the MAGA movement.[citation]

I reckon this will probably need an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I support your language with a caveat. I suggest we avoid the word "committed", which is controversial at Wikipedia if not discouraged by a guideline. Resistance is futile. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "died by" be acceptable? Riposte97 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There is much to be said for supporting this shorter Riposte97-Mandruss version. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You and others persist in believing, falsely, that (1) most readers care about the details of this purely speculative media overblow, and (2) this will be the interested reader's last stop. To the extent you succeed in making this their last stop, you are actually encouraging ineffective use of the encyclopedia. By reducing views of the subarticles, you are to some extent wasting the immeasurable time spent developing them. Subarticles are not mere afterthoughts. They are an essential part of the encyclopedia. My support for the short version is now strong support. I have no problem with negotiating tweaks, but it should not be made larger. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have seen nothing to suggest it’s false that readers are interested in this in fact I have seen alot of people interested in details on this. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I misread EK's comment as opposition to the short version. My reply stands but is not directed at EK. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok fair enough(though my point about your comment on most readers caring is false stands.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's vague to the point of being obscure, or maybe (word of the week) enigmatic. "Relationship" — were they dating and, if so, when and how long? "Appeared to contradict itself" — that was one heck of an about-face, followed by Trump name-calling his base who, like good little cult foot soldiers, promptly fell back in line. "A compromising list of famous pedophiles" as the link to Jeffrey Epstein client list — if they were already famous for being pedophiles there wouldn't be much left to compromise. Adding BootsED's third version for discussion:

BootsED's third version

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to the client list. In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated she had the list "sitting on my desk" and it would be released after review. In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed and reiterated Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting other theories. The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the past relationship, backlash among Trump's supporters, and conspiracy theories that Trump was in the files. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". References

Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Boots did a great job. You've all helped. The article says what needs to be said. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we'll need an RfC to decide between the Boots/Space version and my/Mandruss' version, and also where in the article the mention should go. Does anyone have any other points they want covered off in the RfC before I start it? Riposte97 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Wait until the news cycle is over, it's an extended one. (Frx, CNN just came out with 1993 photos.) The topic will be easy to summarize once it concludes. I object to an RfC to evaluate a moving target. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ditto, we can wait, we do not need to rush into print, we are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I like waiting. That would be an informal consensus to defer discussion for awhile, TBD. This might mean immediate closure of new discussions per this informal consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then we should revert to the status quo ante and remove what was inserted last week while we wait. Riposte97 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to wait we can create a good version of this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What is your hurry? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I just don’t think waiting is necessary we have the information to be able to create(and if need be vote in an rfc) a good section on this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If so, we will still have "the information" after a wait. So what is your hurry? I'm waiting for you to say something like, "Well it's important to get the information out there as soon as possible." Then I can respond, "That's where you're wrong. It is not at all important. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The information being there after a potential wait doesn’t mean we should wait when it’s not necessary and we can create the section now with the info. My answer to why the hurry is what I said before it’s not necessary to wait we have the information to vote or put into the page(I also don't agree that this isn’t important his relationship with Epstein is a fairly important thing.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt a conspiracy theory with a factoid. Epstein had no "client list", per Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald who should know. He had a list of contacts, like you or I might have if we kept our address book in a spreadsheet. (Frx, mine is a mess spread over two sheets of paper both sides.)

Also a note that Ms. Maxwell won't give her deposition until August 11. GothicGolem29, may I suggest we cool our jets? Have you read WP:NOTNP? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Weather it’s a client list or contact list there’s certainly information out there that we can add to this article.

we don’t need to wait for her deposition to include information when there’s plenty already. Yes and I stand by we have enough information to write about this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion. "Wikipedia does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it" is one section in WP:NOTNP. I recommend you read that. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s not disseminating an opinion it’s including information from reliable sources. I have already read that as I said so thanks for your suggestion but I have already done that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Linking "False or misleading statements by Donald Trump"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artwork by Donald Trump

Donald Trump is also a part-time artist whose works (mostly sketches of New York landmarks), have occasionally sold at auction for sizable sums of money. See [2], [3], [4], [5]. These works have recently attracted a lot of attention since Trump (in response to a story about a birthday card he allegedly sent Jeffrey Epstein, which included a lewd drawing) falsely claimed that he can’t draw.

I wonder if Trump’s artistic output is notable enough to have its own article. Is anyone up to creating Artwork by Donald Trump? If not, since there are already a lot of Trump-related articles on Wikipedia, perhaps the art stuff would work better as a subsection in one of them, or even in the main biography of him (this page). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hardly WP:DUE. He doodles. It's not like he tried to have a career in art, like Hitler, or got much coverage for the art, like Dubya. Catching Donald Trump in a lie ("I never wrote a picture in my life") is just a day ending in y. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

No its not, he is not a famous artist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I oppose a creation of such an article, as he is not notable for being an artist. This is not like Hitler and his art career because he was notable for having one. Meanwhile, Trump very much isn't known for being an artist even amongst his own supporters. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah we don't need a whole article about his amateurish doodles just because he sold one at a charity auction and later lied and said he'd never drawn anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He sold more than five at auction .

Include here as:

Donald Trump >> Personal life >> Art

with Template:External media

Piñanana (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

at least five[6][7][8][9]

$15,000 for a 2003 city skyline at Sotheby's New York in 2020[10]

$4,480 for George Washington Bridge at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in 2019[11]

$16,000 for a sketch of the Empire State Building at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in October 2017[12][13][14]

$29,184 for 2005 sketch of the New York City skyline at Heritage Auctions, in 2017.[15][16][17]

$20,000 work at Heritage Auctions, in Dec. 2017.[18]

$6,875 sketch of Manhattan’s skyline at Nate D. Sanders Auctions Nov. 2017[19][20]

Not Sold Sketch of the New York City Skyline, Signed and Dated 2004, at Heritage Auctions, in 2019.[21]

Piñanana (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

$8,500 tree with dollar bills falling off of it, signed with a gold sharpie[22][23]

$10,000 (sale starting soon) New York City skyline, auction for Hattie Larlham, a nonprofit foundation[24]

Art review: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jerry-saltz-reviews-trumps-doodles.html

Piñanana (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Rewriting paragraph on legal issues in the lead, mentioning Biden 2024 election withdrawal

Initially called "Rewriting Legal Issues in Lead" Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am implementing a bold edit and opening this discussion to find a consensus to significantly improve the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues. It is a long paragraph in the lead, but only four paragraphs in the body. This does not abide by WP:SUMMARY or WP:DUE. Firstly, Trump's victory over Kamala Harris relates far more to his second presidency than to his legal issues, so I moved that sentence accordingly to the succeeding paragraph, and added the extremely DUE context that Biden withdrew from the race. Second off, Trump's civil cases have received minimal coverage in reliable sources relative to his criminal cases, so they do merit mention inclusion in the lead at all. As for Trump's criminal cases, reliable sources significantly covered Trump's legal issues during Biden's presidency, but that coverage was far less than how much reliable sources covered Trump in general during his first presidency. Yet Trump's criminal cases during Biden's presidency receive around the same weight as Trump's first presidency in the lead of this article. Hence I rewrote the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues to abide by Wikipedia policy, removing the civil cases and trimming some specifics of each criminal case. However, I also added a bit of context to Trump's conviction and Georgia case, because the current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted, and implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted.

Current wording:

• In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. He was found guilty of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. After winning the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris, he was sentenced to a penalty-free discharge, and two felony indictments against him for retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election were dismissed without prejudice. A racketeering case related to the 2020 election in Georgia is pending.

Proposed wording:

• Four felony indictments were filed against Trump in 2023. The first indictment was for falsifying business records; Trump was found guilty in 2024 and sentenced to a penalty-free discharge, marking the first and only time that a former U.S. president was convicted of a felony. The second and third indictments were dismissed without prejudice in 2024, while the fourth indictment was paused indefinitely.
• (as part of succeeding paragraph) Trump won the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris after Biden withdrew from the race. (followed by the rest of the paragraph)

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia, so expanding them is not an option. There has not been an RfC on this topic, so I will also create one if necessary. Bill Williams 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia - Citation needed. I didn't have to look very far to find a slightly longer article, First presidency of Donald Trump. Beware of SWAGs.

Otherwise, I usually like reduction in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Bloated is relative, not based on absolute length. Trump's presidency has much more coverage than Trump himself, so it will have an absolutely longer article. However, this article on Trump himself is relatively more bloated, since many details in this article should solely be included in the article on his presidency. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If you put it that way, I agree. That's consistent with what some of us have been saying for years. Sadly, a consensus that would eliminate the need to fight the same battle for every little issue has been elusive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted. Juries found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud with extensive coverage in media, and he's still on the hook for around $90 million in the former and $350 million in the latter case (both plus interest). Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy". At the same time, you added a play-by-play of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate to the lead, something we don't mention in the body of our "bloated" article. Your version of the criminal cases is not an improvement. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy": I'd like to note that my argument won that RfC, and your argument lost, so I don't know why you are bringing this up now. I also didn't add a "play-by-play" of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate," I added literally five words, because otherwise an uneducated reader will question "why was Harris the nominee if Biden was the previous president and ran in 2024?" And regardless, the 2024 election does not belong in the paragraph about his legal issues. But yes, I will add that to the body instead, since nothing should be in the lead without significant coverage in the body. As for what you said about his civil judgements, your beliefs do not have any significance for this article, because DUE is determined by coverage from reliable sources. And reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible compared to literally everything else in the lead, including his criminal charges, so the civil judgements don't belong in the lead. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I added Biden's withdrawal to the body. Only three sentences, and every other president's article's election sentence has at least a sentence on their opponents. This one requires three because no incumbent president withdrew from an election since LBJ 56 years earlier, so it's necessary context for readers (as determined by the significant coverage of the withdrawal by reliable sources). Bill Williams 18:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

uneducated reader - huh. We didn't mention Biden's 2024 campaign (and we still don't because I reverted that off-topic addition to the "bloated" body, as well). Why would a reader wonder about somebody other than the predecessor running in the election? It happens frequently, e.g., at the end of the second term of every president, also e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson. And if someone does wonder, they can click the name of the predecessor. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible. E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump cites 266 sources, New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization cites 450. Sounds like a lot of attention to me. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Incumbent presidents withdrawing from their reelection campaign doesn't "happen frequently", it only happened twice after the 22nd amendment: 1952 and 1968 (more than 55 and 70 years ago respectively). It wasn't Biden's second term, so those presidents are irrelevant. And readers cannot "click the name of the predecessor" because Biden's name is mentioned nowhere in the 2024 election section of this article. You expect a reader to scroll way up to the top of this article, then click on Biden's name, then read multiple paragraphs, before finally learning that Biden withdrew? Bill Williams 18:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say "withdrew". Why would anyone coming to this page to read about Trump's life look for info on Biden? Predecessor and successor are always mentioned in the infobox. If anyone wants to know more about the 2024 race than the info we provide in our "bloated" article, they can click the link to that article, in the body AND in the lead because the new policy is to link everything that can be linked. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Most readers check this article to learn about everything regarding Trump, not just "Trump's life", whatever that means. Many readers check this article and see the election section and go to that section to learn about the election. The section leaves out by far the biggest thing that happened in the election (Biden withdrawing), so a reader is going to be completely misled as to what happened during that election if they read this article. You're resorting to whataboutisms about how the election article talks about it, but my whole point is that this article has a lengthy 2024 election section and therefore can include a few sentences on Biden's withdrawal. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So "bloated" is relative? by far the biggest thing is conjecture, i.e., your opinion. And the many readers going to the election section will see the link to the main article they can click if they want to know more than our summary-level section provides. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I already said that "bloated" is relative. Adding three important sentences to a lengthy section is not making it more bloated. And "by far the biggest thing" is not conjecture; it takes a few seconds to check Google and see that Biden's poor debate performance, withdrawal from the campaign, and age and health concerns was the most discussed issue regarding the 2024 election from the end of June to the start of November. Almost every reliable source states that Kamala Harris lost primarily due to the negative focus on Biden, irrespective of Harris and Trump's policy proposals and campaigns. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted - nope. It says "convicted in 2024". implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted — we say "is pending". It's paused at the moment pending a court decision on Trump's motion to remove Willis from the prosecution, but it hasn't been dismissed. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump was elected president again in 2024, and plenty of readers do not realize that presidents are inaugurated in January of the following year. As for the Georgia case, it was paused indefinitely, and every reliable source says that it will almost certainly remained paused throughout his presidency. "Is pending" misleads readers into thinking it will continue at some point soon. I simply corrected the wording to "paused indefinitely" because it's accurate and it's the wording that reliable sources use. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The Trump article as a whole could use a better policy for including law suit coverage especially for results; if the results are being excluded from the article then there is little hope of adequately summarizing them in the lede. I'd tried to bring 4 results of legal cases which have been decided in court into the article in early July which was reverted for this: [25]. Its worth discussing and coming up with a better policy for how legal cases are edited/removed from the main Trump article. Bill Williams may also have something to say about the inclusion of the speculative Epstein material which still awaits the release of presently sealed court documents but still receives a full section of coverage in the main article for Trump. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Bill's changes. They clearly rationalise things. Ernest is also correct. If incremental improvements like these keep getting shot down for no good reason, this article will remain low quality. Riposte97 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• oppose a former president being indicted for felonies will always be notable. an opponent change, not so much. ValarianB (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You clearly aren't opposing my proposal, because I still included plenty about Trump's felony indictments. I just made the language more clear on the felony indictments and removed the mention of Trump's civil charges because they have seen far less coverage than Trump's criminal charges from reliable sources. I also made the election part go in the paragraph about his second administration, since his election relates more to his second administration than to his felony indictments. Whether or not Biden's withdrawal should be included is a different story, but the 2024 election should clearly be its own sentence in the lead, so it's asinine that currently it is only in a sentence about his criminal prosecutions. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Asinine — huh. Should clearly be its own sentence: why? He won the election, and we mention it chronologically in between the lawsuits, indictments, and convictions and the penalty-free discharge and the dismissals without prejudice. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So you think that Trump's victory in the 2024 election, which gave him a second presidency, does not belong in the paragraph about his second presidency? You think that it makes more sense to readers if Trump's 2024 election victory is mentioned in the middle of a paragraph about his civil judgements and criminal indictments? I mean seriously, the articles of all 44 US presidents have a separate sentence for each their elections, except for Washington, who has one sentence mentioning both elections. But as always, you'd prefer we give Trump's article special treatment (or especially negative) to frame the 2024 election in the lead of this article as being all about Trump's civil and criminal trials. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a forum. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It remains low quality because the main stream media is LIBERAL, and FACEBOOK admitted to SUPPRESSING CONSERVATIVE VIEWS. That influenced what people/media covered. So they wanted to be popular, and chose the algorithm that favored liberal voices. You have have have to get to the TRUTH, and mainstream media does not carry it. They twist items like Social security changes which were part if the TAX reform deductions, not SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS. The liberals will have to wait a year (when actually filing taxes) to see that they DO get to deduct s.s. payments-- maybe then theyll stop believing MSM? ALSO, Trump won against CNN. And most of the baby lawyers cases come from 2 liberal cities, and were overturned by Supreme Court, so stop reporting MSDNC claims that he is OVERSTEPPING his powers. 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-says-he-received-16-million-payment-after-paramount-lawsuit-settlement-2025-07-22/ 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Trumps Russiagate documents hoax

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

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

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

Secured border in January 2017- January 2020

https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/2023_0818_plcy_enforcement_actions_fy2022.pdf 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A, not an RS. B, What is it you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump helping Israel throughout the Gaza Genocide

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as I said here, I suggest we mention in his page that Donald Trump has been supporting Israel during its ongoing genocidal war, throughout which it had committed documented war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Spclmnt (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC) I disagree we need to say any more than they have both supported Israel, we do not ahve to say anything about them supporting genocide. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC) One doesn't say "collaborators helped the Nazi Germany during the WW2" but rather "they helped the Nazi Germany carry out the Holocaust." Why does a convention that applies to the the Holocaust doesn't apply to a Palestinian holocaust? Spclmnt (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC) The Gaza genocide page hasn’t said in wiki voice it’s a genocide yet just stating that organisation and scholars have called it a genocide so we also we should not put in wikivoice he’s supporting genocide just say he’s supporting Israel in its war. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

More Sources Needed

We need some more sources for some of this info to be acceptable. Please look into the following, and if no reputable sources can be found, it is necessary to delete all these instances:

- Terms like "authoritarian," "fascist," or "self-coup" must be attributed: e.g., "Scholars have described his actions as..."
- Allegations (e.g. shell companies, mafia ties, influence over unions) need sources, not implication.
- Subjective assessments (e.g. being ranked among the “worst presidents”) must cite reputable historians, surveys, or academic consensus. BeProper (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Those are already sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

They're all attributed and sourced, except for "shell company" (that sentence says "is alleged to have been a shell company", per the New York Times) and "influence over unions" which is something the article doesn't say. Or maybe you're referring to this reliably sourced sentence about Trump's former fixer Roy Cohn: Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connections controlled construction unions, the only mention of "Mafia" in the article. Scholarly rankings: we cite C-SPAN and Siena College's surveys of presidential scholars and historians which are used in all articles on U.S. presidents. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up WP-wide. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

They're sourced. Do you have any sources that may contradict these (very much sourced) statements? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)