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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by unlisted consensus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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Citation access-date

Can someone here tell me please why the access-date is omitted from so many refs? I will fix them all if somebody can explain. IABot can use the access date if a link goes dead. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Accessdate is an optional parameter for fixed works with a publication date. If there's going to be a push for consistency, I'd advocate omitting it in more cases, given the number of references involved here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Besides, if you added an access-date, I would think you would have to re-verify the content. That would be a lot more work than I think you have in mind. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria. Mandruss, I was prepared for a long slog. Never mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Trans in lead

@Riposte97 Why do you not think we should mention his trans EOs in the lead? Far less significant actions of his second term are already there Snokalok (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I take issue with your wording, that the EOs have the effect of 'stripping rights from transgender Americans.' Riposte97 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you prefer "implement restrictions on the activities of transgender Americans"? Snokalok (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The more accurate, neutral phrasing would be "rolling back federal recognition of gender identity". Either way, this policy is far less notable than the mass deportation programme and overhaul of the federal government. I have removed the other insignificant "actions", as their presence in the lead is WP:UNDUE. MB2437 21:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the mass deportation program is, for the most part, significant enough to mention in the lede yet. Some reporting has indicated that the federal government under Donald Trump isn't removing a substantially greater number of immigrants than happened during Joe Biden's presidency. One story today even indicated that ICE may be gaming search engine results to make it look like they're doing more than they are. It's true that there's been some flashy reporting about how the deportations are being carried out, e.g., the tiff with Colombia's president about treating deportees humanely, but there nearly 500 deportation flights to Colombia over the past five years. The one element that is clearly new is the use of Guantanamo to house illegal immigrants, with the attendant questions about habeas corpus. And there have been stories about the administration preparing to contract with private companies to build what will probably look like concentration camps, if they should ever come to fruition. NME Frigate (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, the US has housed illegal migrants at Guantanamo in the past. See: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/2/11/the-us-held-migrants-at-guantanamo-before-is-trumps-approach-different.
In any event, regarding the point at hand, I agree it's not due for the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

With regards to 'ever coming to fruition', this should stipulate all details on his second presidency are removed from the lead. Worth noting that the lead does not indicate how many illegal immigrants they are removing, simply that he initiated a program with wider intention. Following WP:LEAD calls for its inclusion, as it has an entire section to itself in the body. MB2437 23:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve always favored the inclusion of these topics in the lead section. Mörunivśa5tr (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That's equivalent to white washing. Taking away recognition for someone is taking away their rights. Just as an example, he has directed the military to (and/or appointed a SecDef who will) discharge any transgender military servicepeople. In other words, the right of someone who is physically able to do so to serve their country in the military is being taken away. Furthermore, his administration has removed the ability of people to correct their gender on federal documents even for those born intersex. If that's not taking away someone's rights, what is? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Nay, sir. In my view, no rights are being taken away. If you have RS stating otherwise, please submit them here. Riposte97 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I listed two rights that were taken away by the Trump administration. The sourcing for those two rights being taken away has been presented already here (and in the article). There are many more examples. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Being a soldier is not a 'right'. Come on. Do asthmatics not have rights in America? I don't mean that the prohibition is unsourced. I mean there aren't serious sources arguing this is a some kind of rights violation, are there? Riposte97 (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the people who fought for the rights of Afro Americans to serve, gay people to serve, and women to serve, would disagree with you. By your logic, you could say “Banning trans people from university isn’t a removal of rights because people who score badly on the SATs can’t go either”. It’s bluesky. Snokalok (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The key difference being that the military has rigorous physical entrance requirements, and it has been widely debated—for better or for worse—whether the use of HRT is appropriate there. The user's point is that becoming a soldier is an inherently discriminative process, barring entrance for a range of factors out of one's control, and not a "right" by any means. Barring one from the right to an education, for example, is completely different. MB2437 20:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is getting off topic but even if it's a widely debated thing on HRT (even though biologists would say it is utterly irrelevant) it is odd to just remove people from joining the military also not every trans person goes on HRT so yes it's a bit of a removal of rights. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

And that conclusion can be drawn from the reader; we do not need to force feed buzzwords such as 'stripping rights'—the tone is not neutral, nor is it wholly accurate. Whether the reader should agree or disagree on that tone is not our judgement to make. MB2437 12:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally while it is something he is doing it should probably be kept in a separate section like social issues or LGBTQ issues in the other articles for something to be in the lead it needs to be really significant. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not important enough for the lead, especially not compared to global trade war, gutting the federal workforce, or mass deportation. I support removal. — Goszei (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of the film The Apprentice

Controversy has emerged about the inclusion of the movie The Apprentice. Please don't clog up this biography selling films. Jeremy Strong is the star and Roy Cohn's article doesn't even mention it except in a table (Mr. Stan was a forgettable Trump). Second, the title adds confusion with the TV show for the reader. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You say Sebastian Stan was "forgettable" playing Donad Trump in The Apprentice. If I saw the film, I might very well agree with you, but that would still be "original research." Given that Stan was nominated for a Golden Globe (he lost to Adrien Brody in The Brutalist), a BAFTA (the awards ceremony is tomorrow night), an Independent Spirit Award (awards are a week from today), and an Oscar (the ceremony is scheduled for March 2), the consensus seems to be on the other side, although perhaps if you find a raft of critics describing Stan's performance as mediocre, that might offset the industry acclaim.

I think the question is; how often are biopics mentioned in the articles on their subjects? Is Oppenheimer mentioned in the article on J. Robert Oppenheimer? Is A Complete Unknown mentioned in the article on Bob Dylan? And so forth. NME Frigate (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

NME Frigate makes a good point. I'm supporting the version of this edit made by Nikkimaria which adds mention of the Academy Award nominated biographical film The Apprentice in the Real Estate section of the Trump article. As a major production film about a sitting president, this is a notable exception to the rule that sitting president's rarely have feature length films made about them during their term of office. Also, Trump was informed of this film's production and declined to challenge this biographical film as being subject to the laws of libel or defamation. This version of the edit made by Nikkimaria should be restored to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither J. Robert Oppenheimer nor Bob Dylan have top bios the size of this one and a hundred or so related articles on different aspects of their lives, activities, and families. Trump does, and there is an article on Donald Trump in popular culture. This article used to have a section entitled "In popular culture". It was removed on November 10, 2024, in favor of a "see also" link to the separate article where the movie is mentioned in the Films section. A new "Popular culture" section was boldly added and the content, slightly trimmed, then moved into the "Real estate" section, no reason given. Biopics are more or less fictionalized dramatizations of events and not reliable sources per WP:RS. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

NME Frigate's argument is a good one so I took a quick look (James Brown has a whole section named §Biopics). I concur with Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the case of Trump, Wikipedia has a place to put this. Donald Trump in popular culture. And why haven't you guys added it in prose to Roy Cohn? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC) -

NMEFrigate has not been on the Trump Talk page here since 2-15-25 and his comments at that time seem well placed. Both Oppenheimer and Bob Dylan are FA articles on Wikipedia and deserve more attention in this context of making the Trump article more effective. I'm assuming that some editors have not seen this biographical film and I'll note some defense of the principle of recreating documentary and historical enactments when actual videotapes are not available for important scenes. In the case of "The Apprentice", Trump is the one who is biographically presented as the apprentice of Cohn, not the other way around. The film then makes the presentation of Cohn teaching his apprentice Trump his three part rules of aggressive winning, teaching Trump to: "always attack, never admit wrongdoing, and always claim victory." This biographical film maintains that this mantra is effective in understanding why Trump became the political realist that he is today, and why he was guided by a realist-oriented caveat emptor business ethic in his business career. The version of the edit added by Nikkimaria to the "Real estate" section (linked by Space4Time above) should be returned to the article, and NMEFrigate's argument should be followed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, ErnestKrause. Wikipedia is a big place, but it does not have articles for Bob Dylan in popular culture or Robert Oppenheimer in popular culture. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The film material for Oppenheimer and Dylan is already included in those articles in their respective Legacy sections ( and not Popular Culture sections). By your analogy, then "The Apprentice" material should be added to the Legacy (aka Assessments) section of the Trump article. Unless you have not seen "The Apprentice", then I'm not sure why you appear not to want the Cohn material added here in the Trump article, since it was brought into the Cohn article last week. Your thread above on this Talk page seems to mention Cohn as relevant to the Trump article here. I'm still accepting the point raised by NMEFrigate above, and the usefulness of the addition of the edit by Nikkimaria in the Real Estate section which you deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump was paid $50,000 a season an episode to appear in The Apprentice television show. That's not a legacy or an assessment issue; the show was his employer. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The edit you reverted had nothing to do with the television show; the edit you reverted was of the 2024 film which does not deal with Trump's years on the television show. Could you consider restoring the edit into the Real Estate section, or moving it into the Assessment section. The film version from 2024 has nearly nothing to do with the television program of the same name. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Evidently I misunderstood, By your analogy, then "The Apprentice" material should be added to the Legacy (aka Assessments) section of the Trump article.

You don't seem to understand that Donald Trump has a whole article Donald Trump in popular culture. And that article has a subarticle Donald Trump filmography. Somebody has already added The Apprentice the movie in both places. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Stating it plainly, the 2024 film is on multiple sibling pages on Wikipedia. This discussion is about my supporting Nikkimaria's version of the edit as being informative to the Real Estate section of the main article for Donald Trump; both you and Space4T appear to be opposed to this. It also appears that neither of you have seen the film. My position is to support keeping the edit in the main article for Donald Trump either in the Nikkimaria version in the Real Estate section, or in the Assessments section. If no other editors are participating in this Talk page discussion, then it appears to be difficult to move forward. The 2024 film has virtually no ties to the television program of the same name which you keep mentioning and which is already included on the main page for Donald Trump in its own subsection. The 2024 film should be mentioned in the Real Estate section as an improvement to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with deferring it to a subarticle as an alternative. (Disclaimer: also haven't seen the film). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria. ErnestKrause, why are we fixated on just this one movie? There's a long list at Donald Trump filmography#Film 2. (I did see The Apprentice and admired Jeremy Strong, as mentioned. Did you see it?) -SusanLesch (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No fixation here. I thought the edit as placed by her was well made and useful. Without further support though, it seems destined to stay on the sibling pages at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Interview for The Times? Email

Probably not the right place, but I just got an Email (through wikipedia) from ‪Eugenesmithjournalist‬ asking "Interview for The Times?", because I had edited this page. (But not about any particular edit). Anyone else? Faolin42 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and I granted the interview, which was conducted via email. It's this Times, btw. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Mention of Manhattan developments in lead

I think the lead should use a few words to describe Trump's 1970s and 1980s business career, which was best defined by his high-profile projects in Manhattan such as the Grand Hyatt New York and Trump Tower. My suggested addition is and undertook high-profile projects in Manhattan., which was removed in this revision. Right now, there is a gap in the biographical narrative between him becoming president of the family business in 1971 and his bankruptcies in the 1990s. This skips over the 1980s, a decade during which he was one of the most high-profile people in New York and the country, and became a household name. I think we can spare six words to allude to this. What do other editors think? — Goszei (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Best-defined — what about the Atlantic City casinos? We used to mention in the lead that he branched out into building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses ("acquiring or building" would be better). Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be a good wording too, though it was removed in the post-election cutting. I think it's concise and useful, and would support adding it back over my suggestion. — Goszei (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Goszei: Removing the info that Trump graduated with a bachelor isn't an improvement, especially after adding "Wharton School" after "University of Pennsylvania". Wharton is mostly known for its master program; many people don't know that it also offers an undergraduate program. It's one of several undergraduate school at UPenn, and we've had quite a few discussions on whether to use UPenn, Wharton, or both, and the decision was to use UPenn. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I reverted myself on that count. — Goszei (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Details about Hillary/Obama conspiracy pushing

Throughout his political career Trump has endorsed or otherwise propagated various conspiracy theories surrounding Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Should this be mentioned somewhere? 2603:8000:1801:65F1:D9AB:A359:6E6:3061 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Some of them, such as the birther conspiracy (re: Obama not being a citizen) are covered (specifically in the section Racial and gender views). There's also a section titled Conspiracy theories that summarizes the longer article on conspiracy theories that Trump has promoted. That section may be able to be expanded beyond the couple sentences it is now, though. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There are too many of them, we'd need a separate article. We're better off with the link to the list. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a link to the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump at the top of Donald Trump#Conspiracy theories; the list has numerous links to WP articles on individual conspiracy theories. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

We have a whole article about False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. One of our longest articles.🤭 Bishonen | tålk 02:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC).

TMTG in lead

My suggested edit is to add "He founded Trump Media & Technology Group that year." after the mention of Jan 6 in the lead. It seems odd to skip over his founding of a multi-billion dollar company here.[2] It was one of the most notable things he did between terms, and is weighted as such in the body. MB2437 13:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The company is basically synonymous with Truth Social, which I think could be indirectly included in the lead by introducing his broader use of social media (Social media use by Donald Trump), though I think all of this is a little below the threshold for inclusion. — Goszei (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead, "side venture" covers it. The Guardian article is more than 3 months old. In January, Truth Social was ranked ##1,141 in traffic in the U.S. and #4,635 globally, #73 in the category News and Media Publishers in the U.S., behind the Seattle Times and before al.com, number of monthly visits 18.9 million (X had 4.7 billion). They reported $3.6 million in sales for all of 2024 and an operating loss of $186 million. Its parent company TMTG lost $400 million in 2024 and reported $3.6 million in revenue (down 12% from 2023), so apparently they don't have any other source of revenue than Truth Social. "Founded" — a couple of former Apprentice participants brought the idea to him, did all the work, and got shafted in return. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Fred Trump

Due to Fred's role in kickstarting Donald's business career, I feel that Donald's parents, Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, are important enough to warrant direct mention in the infobox via the "parents=" parameter - especially since Donald's father was judged important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Mörunivśa5tr (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be ok. Makes sense. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia article for Donald Trump

Hello, just wanted to note that the article for Donald Trump on the Croatian Wikipedia (Hrvatski Vikipedija) is not near as in-depth as the English-Wikipedia article. If there are any Croatian speakers here, please help translate content and move it to the Croatian Wikipedia article on Donald Trump. Contributions would be much appreciated. LjuljaBarnovic39 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Second unconsecutive term president

The distinction ‘second present to serve two non-sequential terms’ should be distinguished to mention that this only applies to U.S. presidents. Qouwfecevskxsmsnuî (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Where exactly is it unclear? 76.170.147.28 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That is a given since is an article about an American president. This isn't the Simple Wikipedia, we don't bludgeon that reader with obvious facts. Zaathras (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Sufficiently clear in context. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"Ronald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ronald Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 21 § Ronald Trump until a consensus is reached. RealStranger43286 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Further reading

I moved Jennifer Mercieca's book to Further reading. It had been inserted as a second source in §Political practice and rhetoric, without a page. I don't think her book even mentions fearmongering (which the first source does mention). Mercieca shows a complex and involved theory of Trump's language that is probably way beyond our scope, and is better explored in Rhetoric of Donald Trump. I leave it to others to decide if we need a Further reading section. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 21 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)

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)

2025–present

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.

---

Sorry for asking but can someone explain why the section headers under second presidency have 2025–present at the end? It is already under the section second presidency (2025–present) and is not consistent with his first presidency besides looking clunky. Is it for a technical reason? Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The idea is to remove the ambiguity with section titles in the First presidency section which would otherwise have the exact same names as several of the section titles in the 2nd presidency section. This way (by adding the parenthesis caption) there is no ambiguity between the section names in the 1st presidency section and the 2nd presidency section. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeshivish613, using the same section headings in the first and second presidency sections is not a problem for human readers, but the software can't tell them apart and will ignore the "duplicate" in the second presidency section. You would not be able, for example, to link from another article to the "Early actions" section in the second presidency section because Donald Trump#Early actions would always go to the first presidency section. We had two discussions (PartI, Part II) about how to solve the problem. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 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.