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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by unlisted consensus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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

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. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (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. 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)

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.
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)

Internal consistency

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

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

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

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

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

Article bias forum

This forum is about bias at this article. For discussion about Wikipedia article bias in general, please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Anyone is welcome to read the forum. Users who have some experience working with Wikipedia content policy are invited to participate.

To enter the forum, follow this link.

Related reading: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 47 + 84 + 155 + 135 + 71

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 44 + 82 + 162 + 147 + 26

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 44 + 79 + 154 + 141 + 57

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 44 + 81 + 154 + 178 + 45

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 138 + 45

Tracking article size

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

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

Litigiousness, Cohn, calling losses wins

Original heading: "Biographical detail". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: We are lucky to have your oversight of this article. You are, second only to Firefangledfeathers, the best editor I have seen on Wikipedia. Will you please work with me to replace two things that yesterday you termed "overdetail" in your revert? I am open to your suggestions if the following don't work for you.

1. Some say Trump learned to be litigious from Cohn, and others say Trump found Cohn to be like-minded.

   This is needed to explain Trump's muscle memory that lawsuits will always help him no matter the outcome. His reflex to sue brought us the second term barrage of executive orders with no regard for legality. Somewhere this article needs to say that Trump is litigious. It's a defining personality trait. My sources are Buettner and Craig who are both Pulitzer-winning New York Times journalists who wrote a recent Trump biography (2024). I propose to keep the sentence and drop the footnote.

   "Many have said Trump learned to be litigious from Cohn, and others say that Trump found Cohn to be like-minded.

   Can you agree?

2. In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name in real estate deals to build luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were ever built.

   This is simply wikt:fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. When we hear Trump ask the Palestinians to move and offer to build a tourist resort in Gaza we ought to know he has done this not once but forty times before. Customers have been duped and lost deposits on luxury projects from Waikiki to Florida, while he got paid every time. I absolutely believe there's always a first time, but this history should inform the present. I propose to shorten the sentence slightly.

   In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to build luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were built.

   Can you agree?

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, I broadly agree that his attitude towards litigation is important for the biography. I don't think how he got that attitude (or from who, for example) is important. I'd recommend trying to find a way to use that footnote as the actual information. To me the important parts (that are DUE) would be that he does not care if he wins or not, and that he invents phony enemies if he loses.

I don't believe the second one is a fool me once situation. Those were all ventures he undertook as a private individual. The idea for Gaza is that the US would take over the land, and then other private developers would develop it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, care to suggest text?

For the second, Trump never intended to be the developer. He licensed his name for millions. An example, in Tampa, Florida, the "other private developers" were a former professional wrestler, a dentist, and someone who'd built small apartment buildings. All unvetted and inexperienced. He claimed he, Melania, and Donald Jr. were buying units. "Buyers had to come up with a 20 percent nonrefundable deposit to lock in a unit." The developers found out after the groundbreaking ceremony that their site couldn't support the weight of the towers without supports. Trump sued them when they ran out of money. You're correct that the US government is a separate entity, but I have to question Trump's vision in light of 40 failures. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "According to (source) [if attribution is needed, depending on how many sources/the strength of them], Trump believes in litigating without regard for the chance of success, and if losing the litigation, makes up phony enemies to justify the loss" or similar?

For the second, I'd be worried about a BLP violation - like you said, he just licensed his name. That doesn't make him ultimately responsible for the failure of those developers to conduct business appropriately. If there was a source that explicitly said "Trump has a history of licensing his name to unscrupulous/poorly managed development ventures, significantly more often than other people who license their names" or similar, then we could maybe include it, though I'd question if it's due. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

berchanhimez, thank you for the text. We should use it. Please tell me first though, how could #2 be a violation of WP:BLP? Why the secrecy here? FYI, in 2006, two years after The Apprentice launch, Trump announced "construction projects in Atlanta, Dallas, Delaware, two in Florida, Hawaii, Philadelphia, New York City,...White Plains...Panama, Mexico, and Israel". He was not the developer but he cultivated that illusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

berchanhimez? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

On the first, I'd agree, given what you've presented here, that the information in the footnote is actually the more important piece of this. I don't have access to the source you've used for that quote - does it relate to a specific lawsuit, or it's just a general statement?

All right. I'll work on berchanhimez's text. The authors present this is in about a half page in the context of him losing the federal discrimination suit. They call Trump "fully formed" at age twenty-seven. The quote refers to Trump going forward, in a general sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

On the second... I'm not sure I follow the argument you're making. If he didn't intend to be the developer and was just licensing his name, I wouldn't see that as giving him any obligation to ensure the buildings were actually built. You could say he was lending his name to questionable people, if the sourcing supports the assessment you've given here, and that could be folded into the sentence that precedes your addition. But IMO the whole Gaza "proposal" is a very different issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The courts agreed with you. People sued for their money back and often lost. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

How's this?

Before age thirty, Trump showed his propensity for litigation, no matter the outcome and cost: even in a loss, he would devise phony arguments and treat the case as a win.

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggest "Before age thirty, Trump showed his propensity for litigation, no matter the outcome and cost; even when he lost, he would describe the case as a win." Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe eliminate "would"? "[...] even when he lost, he described the case as a win."

Alternatives to "described": portrayed, characterized, represented. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, thank you both! Much improved. Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

How's this? It belongs at the end of §Licensing the Trump name.

In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were built.

-SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody replied so I put this in. Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not what you put in. Also, how DUE is this? How many other things did Trump licence his name to? Riposte97 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump made promises to forty sets of people and reneged, surely notable for inclusion per WP:DUE. There are chapters in our sources, Kranish and Fisher and Buettner and Craig, that cover his real estate deals of the period just after The Apprentice began. (I happen to know he built the JW Marriott in Panama City and The Ritz-Carlton Baku Hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan. and Trump Chicago, but creating a blow by blow list like that is WP:OR.) Regarding DUE:

• WP:BLPSTYLE: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects...
• WP:BLPBALANCE: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.
• WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Riposte97, would you please provide the text that you prefer? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump did not make promises to those people. The developers did. I’m not sure he bears any moral culpability here. Furthermore, the 'forty' number may not be hugely relevant if the total number to be built was, say, a thousand. Shorn of that context, it reads a little slanted.
Perhaps we could say, 'Trump licensed his name to a series of residential property developments, some of which were never built.' But again, it just seems trivial. Riposte97 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a trivial point to the hundreds of people who had to agree to settlements. Nor was it trivial to the judges who sealed those records. To avoid slanted content, Wikipedia guidelines require reliable sources, WP:RS. Riposte97, I already gave you two. Two more:

All of these promotions, sales pitches, and newsletter updates created the impression that Trump was the builder and the developer, words he used.

The Trump Baja News house newsletter said in July 2007:

our new and excited homeowners now are part of an elite group of vacation homeowners who own property developed by one of the most respected names in real estate, Donald J. Trump.

What is your source for saying Trump did not make promises to those people.?

What is your source for say, a thousand? Did you pull the number out of the air or do you refer to reliable data? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm I’m afraid I’m just not convinced. This is a question of editorial judgement that is probably best mediated by a third person. I understand there are RS that deal with the Baja project. What I don't understand is how important that project is in the context of Trump's business activities, particularly in circumstances where Trump wasn't the developer. The sources make clear that the primary defendant in the litigation surrounding the project was the Mexican developer. I'll leave it for others to weigh in from here. Riposte97 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You've not answered reasonable questions and then you walked away. I will remember that. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I am merely cognisant of WP:BLUDGEON. As I say, I'm not convinced by your edit, which differed from the one proffered above. It's now up to other editors to break the deadlock. Riposte97 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Two replies ago you seemed to me to object to how I represented Trump's role. But your last reply (and your first) seemed to me to object to my edit. There was some problem with the different way I worded it (two sentences in place of one).

Proposed above:

In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were built.

My edit:

In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to luxury condominium towers around the world. Forty of them were never built.

My feeling is that the target is moving around. Maybe you're right that you and I can't resolve this. -SusanLesch (talk)

For the next round, I propose this based on Riposte's text, to follow the section §Licensing the Trump name:

During the 2000s after his television career made him famous, Trump licensed his name to residential property developments worldwide, forty of which were never built.

Continuing rationale. Wikipedia has a List of things named after Donald Trump that puts "a thousand" about two orders of magnitude out of the picture. Combining the two sections §Real estate and §Hotels yields:

• 38 named properties, 9 of them owned by Trump or the Trump Organization, 29 licensed
• 35 cancelled or never completed

My source for "forty" is from 2024 (and won't help the list). I restored the date, changed "around the world" to "worldwide," and changed the word "some" to "forty" per our source and per MOS:WTW. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC) P.S. Riposte97, I also added the context of Trump's fame from TV. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Riposte97: Trump did not make promises to those people. The developers did. I’m not sure he bears any moral culpability here. Trump said in a video promoting the project on the Trump Baja website "when I build, I have investors that follow me all over. They invest in what I build, and that’s why I’m so excited about Trump Ocean resort". Trump was sued separately from the investors and settled for the usual "undisclosed amount" and confidentiality agreement. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm so I see. But again, I just don't see how Trump is morally culpable for this thing going down. In an article like this, we can't include every tidbit that would be in, say, a book-length biography. Editors have to exercise judgement about what to include, and mine is telling me that this story says little about the man. Riposte97 (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Where did you get this idea? Nobody is proposing we point to anybody's morality. One statement of fact covers a lot of ground, and is key to understanding how Trump spent the celebrity capital he earned in The Apprentice. We're talking about one sentence. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Can you accept the latest version? It was you who removed it first. Chapters and chapters in biographies cover this, which we've got down to one sentence of Riposte's with modifications explained above. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Would suggest During the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to residential property developments worldwide, forty of which were never built. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources
References

Article possibility for downsizing by about 52Kb in system size

Downsizing for the Political practice and Rhetoric section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part Two of downsizing Rhetoric section: 3 paragraph version

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

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

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

  Nasty   Dumb

• What happened to Truthfulness?

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

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

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

Political practice and rhetoric

Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump

Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump

See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

Sources

Summarizing Business career section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikitext formatting change?

Edit User:Mandruss/sandbox#Domestic policy to see a tentative suggestion for a change to wikitext formatting for prose.

I would handle the initial conversion. I would also handle some of the ongoing maintenance, but I wouldn't care to make a career of it. I learned a lesson many years ago with list-defined references at a different article: Everybody was benefiting from the change but nobody else was helping maintain it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You're proposing to add a line containing <!----> between individual sentences in each paragraph to make editing the big wall of unstructured text that is the current Domestic policy section easier to edit? That's a problem we didn't have in the pre-"improvement" version. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm tentatively suggesting doing that for the entire article, not one section. Perhaps we could keep other issues separate. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

entire article — I assumed as much. It requires more scrolling in the source editor and could cause confusion when cites cover more than one sentence, aside from the maintenance problem. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Mass firings/layoffs/dismissals/terminations

Which term should we use in the heading of this section: Donald Trump#Mass terminations of federal employees?

A. Firings
B. Layoffs
C. Dismissals
D. Terminations

Riposte97, what did you mean by "doesn't cover redundancies"? Sounds like opinion to me. The sources mostly use "firing" and "termination" (also purge), and the employees received termination notices claiming poor performance and/or skills not aligned with needs. Reuters, Guardian, AP News. Are there any sources saying people received termination notices saying their jobs were redundant? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Not only that heading but at least two other places: lead and body prose. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Go with the sources; any other "reasoning" is OR. If you're correct, that eliminates two of four choices. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I like 'terminations', which you've changed it to now. I’m going to add a paragraph on the buy-outs, seeing as these account for most of the headcount reduction in the government so far. Riposte97 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not "Federal bureaucracy", half the content isn't about federal employees getting terminated. Employees getting return-to-office orders and hiring frozen is not termination. DEI programs ending in federal gov is bigger than just DEI workers getting fired. Executive Order 11246 getting rescinded is about federal contractors and requirements for affirmative action. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder — add "access-date" parameter to cites

Makes it a lot easier to find the editor who added it and their editsum explaining why. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That matters to an editor so thorough as you. :) But there are other good reasons to add "access-date" parameter to cites. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It is optional and often unnecessary. Add it only when it's needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Krasnov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musk in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Foundation

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

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

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

@DecafPotato:

Current text

The Donald J. Trump Foundation was a private foundation established in 1988. From 1987 to 2006, Trump gave his foundation $5.4 million which had been spent by the end of 2006. After donating a total of $65,000 in 2007–2008, he stopped donating any personal funds to the charity, which received millions from other donors, including $5 million from Vince McMahon. The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, and charities that held events at Trump properties. In 2016, The Washington Post reported that the charity committed several potential legal and ethical violations, including alleged self-dealing and possible tax evasion. Also in 2016, the New York attorney general determined the foundation to be in violation of state law, for soliciting donations without submitting to required annual external audits, and ordered it to cease its fundraising activities in New York immediately. Trump's team announced in December 2016 that the foundation would be dissolved. In June 2018, the New York attorney general's office filed a civil suit against the foundation, Trump, and his adult children, seeking $2.8 million in restitution and additional penalties. In December 2018, the foundation ceased operation and disbursed its assets to other charities. In November 2019, a New York state judge ordered Trump to pay $2 million to a group of charities for misusing the foundation's funds, in part to finance his presidential campaign. NOTE: I edited two of the sentences in this edit.

Your proposed text

Trump established the Donald J. Trump Foundation in 1988. By 2006, he had given $5.4 million to the foundation. He stopped donating personal funds to the foundation in 2008, though it received millions from other donors. The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, and charities holding events at Trump properties. In 2016, media reports claimed that the charity may have committed legal and ethical violations, including alleged self-dealing and tax evasion. The same year, New York's attorney general said the foundation violated state law by soliciting donations without allowing required external audits, and ordered it to immediately stop fundraising in the state. Trump said the foundation would be dissolved in December 2016 and it ceased operations and disbursed its assets to other charities two years later. In 2018, New York filed a civil suit against the foundation, Trump, and his adult children, seeking $2.8 million in restitution and other penalties. The next year, a state judge ordered Trump to pay $2 million to a group of charities for misusing his foundation's funds, in part to finance his presidential campaign.

Refs
References

Your text:

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

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

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

Worst president

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second presidency -> foreign policy section needs a sentence on tariffs

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

Proposal to not refer to the children of Donald Trump as simply "Trump" on their articles

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

---

Before I start, yes, I am aware that what I am proposing violates Wikipedia's manual of style, however I believe that in this case, an exception is justified.

While I was scanning the article of Tiffany Trump, I encountered the following sentence: "In 2015, Trump worked as an intern for Vogue magazine and, in 2016, modelled for an Andrew Warren fashion show during New York Fashion Week". For a brief moment, I was pretty confused by this, until I realized that "Trump" in this context was referring to Tiffany, and not Donald Trump. I realised that the article on multiple occasions referred to Tiffany as "Trump", as would be typical on any other article, leading to other bizarre statements such as "In summer 2018, while on vacation in Greece with the actress Lindsay Lohan, Trump met Michael Boulos, a Lebanese-American business executive. The pair began a relationship and were married on November 12, 2022, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. In October 2024, it was announced that they were expecting their first child together."

While this convention works perfectly fine on most articles, I believe it is problematic on articles pertaining to the children of Donald Trump, as at this point the name "Trump" has become so heavily associated with the president himself that most people will instinctively think of Donald whenever they see simply "Trump" written without a first name, which could lead to confusion, as well as Wikipedia passages potentially being taken out of context (as I have done here). For this reason, I believe it would be best if Wikipedia articles did not refer to Trump's children, or indeed anyone carrying the Trump surname, as simply "Trump", with the exception of D.J.T. himself.

As for how it should be handled, I think the best way would be to simply use their first names instead (and append Jr. in the case of Donald Trump Jr.), however I am not explicitly proposing that this is the way it should be handled. My proposal here is simply to stop referring to them as "Trump", and for another convention to be agreed upon. Alex the weeb (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We refer to people by their surname. Please see MOS:SURNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, they did explicitly state they know what they are proposing goes against standard MOS Nub098765 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed right past that. Proposals specific to Tiffany Trump's page should be made on that talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Redirect Trump here

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

---

Redirect Trump here Rehmanian (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Trump is a disambiguation page and that seems fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Penalty-free discharge of conviction/dismissal of pending cases after election in the lead

This edit changed

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

Actions in Second Term and Civil Convictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording in early actions 2025 section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammatically ambiguous as written.

Parse 1:

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

Parse 2:

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

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

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

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

Wealthiest cabinet

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

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

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

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

Assassination

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