Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 2 November 2025 (→Ranked straw poll: Rank the four options and explain why!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Cn|consensus n]], where n (2 times) is the item number.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

1. 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)

2. 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)

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

4. Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

5. 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.

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

7. Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
8. Superseded by unlisted consensus
Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled
Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)
11. Superseded by #17
The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite
Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Superseded by lead rewrite
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
17. Superseded by #50
Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
18. Superseded by #63
The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)
20. Superseded by unlisted consensus
Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
21. Superseded by #39
Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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

23. Superseded by #52
The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49
Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)
36. Superseded by #39
Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. Superseded by #71
The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)
45. Superseded by #48
There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

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

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

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

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

50. Superseded by #70
Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
  2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item. Suggested closure for copy-and-paste:
    {{atop|Please read [[WP:TRUMPRCB]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#C61|consensus 61]]. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}}
    [existing thread]
    {{abot}}
  3. Wait at least 24 hours per #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 drugs, and that he sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021) Amended (October 2025)

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

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

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

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

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

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

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

73. Article body includes:

Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein; persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women. Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.

(August 2025, September 2025)

74. This article adheres to WP:EDITREQ. If an edit request is potentially controversial, an editor responds in one of three ways:

  • :{{subst:EEp|c}} ~~~~, rendering as:
     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. [your signature]
  • If the editor prefers a less formal, more personal touch, non-template language to the same effect as above.
  • Or some combination of the above two, with the template first.
    Unless someone feels the response was incorrect for the situation (the edit request was not potentially controversial), no comments are posted after the response. Unless there is a good faith challenge in the interim, the thread is manually archived after 24 hours after the response, per #13. (October 2025)


Internal consistency

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

Copy editing

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

  1. Use American English, per the {{use American English}} template. A good American English dictionary is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
  2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{use mdy dates}} template.
  3. To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example April 12. Since content is often moved around, do this even if the date occurs very early on the line.
  4. To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
  5. Use unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash (" – ").
  6. For em dash, code the HTML entity —. Do not code:
    • the actual em dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
    • the {{em dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
  7. For en dash, code the HTML entity –. Do not code:
    • the actual en dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
    • the {{en dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
  8. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
  9. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".
  10. Code template names in all lower case. Write {{main}} and {{cite news}}, not {{Main}} and {{Cite news}}.
  11. In the captions of images that depict Trump, generally omit identification of him; that is, omit his name. We omit the obvious, as image captions should always do. There are rare exceptions where "the obvious" is not so obvious, as at Donald Trump#Wealth.

References

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

  1. |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
  2. Generally, |work= and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[New York Times]]. Code |work=[[Los Angeles Times]], not |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]].
    • 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 rarely a good reason to pipe this link.
  3. Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
  4. Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article (known author links are listed below). Place this immediately after the |last= and |first= parameters for that author. |last1=Baker|first1=Peter|author-link1=Peter Baker (journalist)|last2=Freedman|first2=Dylan.
  5. In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP FACT CHECK:" becomes "AP Fact Check:".
  6. Per consensus 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date=.
  7. Omit |language= for English-language sources.
  8. Omit |publisher= for news sources.
  9. Omit |location= for news sources.
  10. Omit |issn= for news sources.
  11. Code a space before the pipe character for each parameter. For example, code: |date=April 12, 2025 |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)—not: |date=April 12, 2025|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist). This provides the following benefits for the edit window and diffs:
    • Improved readability.
    • Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
  12. Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important (the changes, not the editors:). For example:
    • Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
    • For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    • The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.

Tracking lead size

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

7 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

4 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

4 Mar 2025 — 457 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 128 + 53

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 40 + 87 + 149 + 128 + 43

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 40 + 87 + 147 + 129 + 43

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 40 + 87 + 147 + 128 + 43

1 Apr 2025 — 458 = 40 + 87 + 171 + 114 + 46

8 Apr 2025 — 493 = 40 + 104 + 167 + 128 + 54

15 Apr 2025 — 502 = 40 + 101 + 158 + 128 + 75

22 Apr 2025 — 495 = 40 + 110 + 159 + 128 + 58

29 Apr 2025 — 522 = 40 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 82

6 May 2025 — 534 = 40 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 94

13 May 2025 — 530 = 40 + 113 + 159 + 63 + 90 + 65

20 May 2025 — 529 = 40 + 113 + 91 + 68 + 64 + 88 + 65

27 May 2025 — 528 = 40 + 113 + 91 + 50 + 64 + 87 + 83

3 Jun 2025 — 549 = 40 + 112 + 141 + 87 + 86 + 83

10 Jun 2025 — 549 = 40 + 112 + 141 + 87 + 86 + 83

17 Jun 2025 — 549 = 40 + 112 + 141 + 87 + 86 + 83

24 Jun 2025 — 549 = 40 + 112 + 141 + 87 + 86 + 83

1 Jul 2025 — 545 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 86 + 83

8 Jul 2025 — 530 = 40 + 108 + 135 + 87 + 77 + 83

15 Jul 2025 — 538 = 40 + 108 + 135 + 87 + 85 + 83

22 Jul 2025 — 547 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 85 + 86

29 Jul 2025 — 547 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 85 + 86

5 Aug 2025 — 547 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 85 + 86

12 Aug 2025 — 556 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 94 + 86

19 Aug 2025 — 564 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 102 + 86

26 Aug 2025 — 564 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 102 + 86

2 Sep 2025 — 564 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 102 + 86

9 Sep 2025 — 564 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 102 + 86

16 Sep 2025 — 564 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 102 + 86

23 Sep 2025 — 568 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 106 + 86

30 Sep 2025 — 568 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 106 + 86

7 Oct 2025 — 568 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 106 + 86

14 Oct 2025 — 568 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 106 + 86

21 Oct 2025 — 572 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 110 + 86

28 Oct 2025 — 546 = 40 + 108 + 141 + 87 + 84 + 86

Tracking article size

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

7 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 94

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

4 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

4 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

1 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

8 Apr 2025 — 11,334 – 356,921 – 217

15 Apr 2025 — 11,443 – 363,611 – 175

22 Apr 2025 — 11,397 – 361,630 – 180

29 Apr 2025 — 11,344 – 361,732 – 180

6 May 2025 — 11,537 – 365,243 – 171

13 May 2025 — 11,565 – 365,873 – 171

20 May 2025 — 11,574 – 366,310 – 171

27 May 2025 — 11,636 – 369,056 – 164

3 Jun 2025 — 11,678 – 369,696 – 164

10 Jun 2025 — 11,758 – 370,645 – 163

17 Jun 2025 — 11,705 – 370,943 – 160

24 Jun 2025 — 11,650 – 369,162 – 162

1 Jul 2025 — 11,622 – 368,483 – 163

8 Jul 2025 — 11,599 – 368,528 – 162

15 Jul 2025 — 11,843 – 373,664 – 152

22 Jul 2025 — 11,978 – 376,726 – 146

29 Jul 2025 — 11,813 – 375,310 – 146

5 Aug 2025 — 12,051 – 381,202 – 136

12 Aug 2025 — 12,213 – 384,442 – 112

19 Aug 2025 — 12,383 – 388,816 – 104

26 Aug 2025 — 12,529 – 395,560 – 91

2 Sep 2025 — 12,726 – 398,489 – 86

9 Sep 2025 — 12,826 – 405,283 – 71

16 Sep 2025 — 12,975 – 408,166 – 69

23 Sep 2025 — 12,979 – 408,503 – 68

30 Sep 2025 — 13,171 – 417,860 – 51

7 Oct 2025 — 13,167 – 416,077 – 52

14 Oct 2025 — 13,114 – 414,237 – 57

21 Oct 2025 — 13,108 – 414,101 – 54

28 Oct 2025 — 13,171 – 417,154 – 48

Assassination attempts

Aren't the assassination attempts against him noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lede? What do you people think? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion in the archive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was "no". The two previous discussions dealing with the lead: July–August 2024 and June 2025. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What assasination attempts? They were staged performances. 4t5y6u7i8o9p (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no evidence of this nor do most reliable sources state this is the case. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence it was staged. It was a assassination attempt 136.47.131.131 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anything about his Social Media self-cartoons?

They provide a view into how he sees himself and the country. A great resource about a very recent one (him in a fighter jet, dropping excreta on the population) can be found below, in a historian's column. I am not on his actual site to link directly to it, but I'm sure serious wikipedians can find it to refer to it if needed. Thank you.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/october-20-2025 98.252.50.184 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the AI videos made and officially put out of him putting a crown on his head (reminiscent of Napoleon), and the video he posted himself of the jet /excrement on the 7-8 million American people exercising their democratic right to protest “no kings”—which is at the historic heart of the American project—are highly significant & should be included on this page. 2001:569:5176:BD00:649D:EB2:FF9F:2E29 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One's belief that something is highly significant is not an argument for inclusion. Show sufficient reliable source coverage and we can talk about it. RS coverage does not mean the publishing of the cartoons etc.; it would need to be independent RS coverage of said cartoons etc. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One's awareness of Wikipedia rules does not preclude using Google.
Guardian. "Sludge"
Guardian. Racist memes.
Guardian. Trump releases deepfakes. NO guardrails for Grok
Guardian. NRSC deepfake.
CNN. has the support of allies and top aides.
Wired. First AI Slop President
Sky News. AI video mocking 'No Kings' protesters
NBC News. Dumping on No Kings protesters.
That's just a few. It's covered pretty much everywhere. Yahoo, Independent, NPR, Euronews, Axios, Time, USA Today, France 24, Politico.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
One's awareness of Wikipedia rules does not preclude using Google. I'm semi-retired. I don't actually do the work, I just require non-semi-retired editors to do so. That is, to the extent I can "require" anything, on- or off-wiki. :) See my signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 17:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On top of everything, he's also a troll — that "owning the libs" thing. Maybe worth a sentence or two in the social media section but we'd need RS to say so, not just news coverage of individual images/videos. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted felon mention in the first sentence

It is common practice in Wikipedia to add that he or she is a convicted felon in the first sentence of their biography if they have been convicted. This holds true even for politicians e.g. George Santos. So I believe we ought to add that to the first sentence of Donald Trump's Wikipedia article also.Crampcomes (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed {{rfc}} template. RfC is for when you can't reach consensus without RfC. We have a consensus that you can find in the talk page archive. We could create a consensus list item for that if you think it might help. Donald Trump is not George Santos or anybody else. For Wikipedia's purposes, Donald Trump is unique. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah everyone is unique, but why would Santos be mentioned as a convicted felon, and Trump, being one, not?
It's funny because this is the exact reason why I've created this account, I saw George Santos being a "convicted felon" and I thought: "hmm, i wonder if Trump is as well".
What happened to objectivity and fairness? N0o0n3123 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
everyone is unique More accurately, Trump's case is unique. That means all the factors combined, including the fact that Trump is a sitting president of the United States. All of this has been covered in previous discussion. You are not presenting any new argument, you are merely disagreeing with the consensus and seeking to have it explained to you because you don't know how to research archived discussions (I presume). Very few consensuses please everyone. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is actually unique, he's the first felon ever to be elected. Shouldn't it be emphasized then?
I assure you, I do not care about archived discussions. This is a discussion I've found so I post a comment, as simple as that, you can wrap your head around it (I presume).
Now a bit less passive-aggressive: if there is a consensus, sure, I still think it's just not fair and I am allowed to cry about it whenever I can, thanks. N0o0n3123 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's entry #699 in the consensus list above that covers this, although not verbatim. That was from January 2025 and there haven't been new criminal convictions since then so probably not much would change with another discussion. Personally I think we should add it, or remove it from other similar articles, for the sake of internal consistency. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this already discussed? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition of East Wing

I added this text

On October 20–23, 2025, he had wrecking crews demolish the White House's East Wing without prior announcement to make room for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom.[1][2]

and was reverted here with the editsum "overdetail". Trump demolishing part of the White House as a fait accompli, without consultation of Congress, historians, not to mention the owners (aka the people), is more than a detail. It's the mortar-and-stone "display [of] Trump's arbitrary power over the Presidency, including its physical seat". It deserves a summary-level sentence in the top bio per consensus #37. As for "meaning its perspective should be on his entire life" per WP:TRUMPOTA: hell yeah. The whataboutism (Truman balcony, Obama's basketball court) by the usual suspects as usual misses the point; none of these changes demolished the historically grown architecture.

References

  1. ^ Edwards, Jonathan; Diamond, Dan; George, Olivia (October 23, 2025). "The East Wing is gone, and Trump turns to damage control". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2025.
  2. ^ Superville, Darlene (October 27, 2025). "The East Wing of the White House is gone. A look at some of the history made there". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 27, 2025.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be many things, but is it wp:due? This article is about Trump, not the White House. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Charles were to demolish a wing of Buckingham Palace to make room for a 90,000 sq.ft. "King Charles III ballroom", I think that would also feature prominently in his article and not just the one on Buckingham Palace. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current ballroom is bigger than the actual White House.
If Charles' ballroom was to be bigger than Buckingham Palace, yes, it would be featured prominently in his article. OmegaAOL (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is WP:DUE solely due to the fact that the ballroom is twice as big as the main WH building. Run that sentence through your mind. OmegaAOL (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just take an objective, dispassionate, uninterested look at RS coverage. If you're able to do that. Ask yourself if you would cite that same amount of RS coverage for something Trump-favorable. This also applies to the new section about third term talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 18:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks. There's a difference between a wrecking ball and talk. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' personal, biased judgment has been allowed to play too large a role for years. We are here to accept the judgment of RS, not supply our own. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 18:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see here, you found what you wanted in two reliable sources and then quit. I ask again, would you accept two sources for Trump-favorable content? If so, let's get you on record. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 18:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A sampler of the coverage so far:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Yep, that's how I edit, you found what you wanted in two reliable sources and then quit. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'm from Missouri, figuratively speaking. I haven't vetted your sources. If nobody else wants to, I'll take your word for it. Disclaimer: I do not doubt your good faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 19:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would. The Gaza ceasefire that he did nothing to actually help broker is mentioned here positively and is less relevant (to a Trump article), than the complete demolition of a major section of the White House. OmegaAOL (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See White House Reconstruction - from 1948 to 1952, the main building's interior was completly gutted out & replaced. That's 148-152 years of history, wiped out. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read White House Reconstruction#Collapse and White House Reconstruction#Changes in design: The rooms of the state floor were reconstructed with few significant changes. The second floor rooms were adjusted to provide built-in closets and additional bathrooms, but otherwise were rebuilt largely as they had been. The third floor was expanded and the rooftop solarium replaced. Two new basement levels were added under the ground floor. That's not "tear down and build something different in its place". Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WH historians may disagree with you. My point is - How does the Harry S. Truman page handle the topic & use that as a guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Harry S. Truman#Blair House and assassination attempt, and that was basically for adding a floor inside the existing portico. You can see the before and after side-by-side in the video. "Adding a balcony" makes it sound as though someone attached it to the outside of the building. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither supporting or opposing inclusioin. Merely recommending that the Truman bio (the last time anything major was done to the White House) be used as a guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was something that had to be done as the interior was deemed unfit for human habitation. A majority of concerned parties wanted to tear down the W.H; it is due to Truman that this did not happen.
Trump is making an unnecessary change without having gotten permission from the regulatory bodies involved in the W.H.'s preservation. There is a difference. OmegaAOL (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, the East Wing was a relatively new addition itself. Riposte97 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The East Wing has existed since 1902, the White House was completed in 1800, i.e. it was been a part of the White House for a longer period of time than it wasn't. Don't waste everyone's time with disingenuous arguments. Zaathras (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole section on Truman's article dedicated to that. It is only fair that there is at least a sentence on Trump and his 90,000sqft ballroom. OmegaAOL (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasoning that counts here is RS coverage. My personal opinion is that the White House is not sacrosanct and can bear some change from time to time. Sort of like Wikipedia. So Trump decided to do some remodeling. Big deal. But my personal opinion counts for as much yours, which is not at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 23:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally not think to include this, either, but for the fact that the ballroom is twice as big as the White House itself. It will fundamentally change the appearance of the most recognizable building in America. OmegaAOL (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. In my opinion, that kind of personal judgment should be avoided in content discussions unless it comes after sufficient RS coverage has been shown. The RS coverage is Step 1 and is not optional.
Transient coverage is not enough; this search of The New York Times indicates that the newspaper started coverage on 20 Oct and ended on 24 Oct. That's a flash in the pan unworthy of inclusion, particularly on the basis of editor judgments about what's "important".
This is why it's much better to wait a month or so and see how things play out, before making any decision about inclusion. Regrettably, we have not been able to reach a consensus on a firm local rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 16:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you hit "more" you'll find stories going back to 3 August and as recent as yesterday. There are, of course, other reliable sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
My point is since the change is so major, there is a wide selection of reliable source coverage on the ballroom. OmegaAOL (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Warp Speed missing under COVID-19 pandemic

I've raised this in the past, but the COVID-19 section should include one sentence on Operation Warp Speed. Numerous reliable sources state that this was a successful policy from a public health standpoint. E.g. [23][24][25][26] Zenomonoz (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what has changed since the last time you brought it up? Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point Zaathras. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 21:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grokipedia article on Trump

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for adding the NBC article to the press banner. Looks as though, aside from Wikipedia, Grok's instructions were to use the bios written for the websites of Trump's campaigns, WH, the Trump Organization, and positive parts of the bio on the UVA Miller Center website. Also at least one sentence that needs a "fails verification" tag (last sentence in "Childhood and Upbringing", the point where I stopped reading). FWIW. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another combatant joins the Battle of Truths (yawn). Every person deserves their own version of reality, and there are a dozen basic ones to choose from (so far). How democratic. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 18:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence should say "also"

It reads "A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021." But I personally think it should say "A member of the Republican Party, he also served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021." Given the previous sentence mentions how he is the 47th POTUS, the "also" part becomes necessary. He has had multiple presidencies after all. The current wording is kinda confusing and seemingly denies the plurality of his presidencies. I normally wouldn't take such a minor edit to the talk page but it says anything in the first two sentences will be reverted without a census so I'm wondering what other editors think. MountainJew6150 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See consensus 70. This has received adequate attention and is a settled issue for the foreseeable future. The first two sentences will be rewritten in '28 or '29, obviously, and #70 will be superseded by a new consensus that will be likewise resistant to change. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 22:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has the No King's protest been mentioned?

The October protests has been widely regarded as the largest single day protests by many sources. I am wondering if this should be mentioned under it's own topic in presidency or just as a side note. Mrannymousanticapitalism (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Protests against Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't there either, so I had to mention it there myself.
It might be worth mentioning here, but probably briefly. Don't take my word for it. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we do "wealthy family" or "Trump family"?

Note from OmegaAOL: Consensus is being reached in the straw poll and relevant discussion below. After that, an editor like User:Mandruss, User:PsyKat777 WasTaken, or myself will make the change. Please do not do it yourself before consensus has been reached.

Hi, I'm PsyKat777 WasTaken. Today (October 31, 2025), I made an edit to the second paragraph of the lead section. More specifically, I changed: "Born into a wealthy family in New York City..." to "Born into the wealthy Trump family in New York City...". This edit was reverted within five minutes because the reverter, @Slatersteven, believed that the edit was obvious and not worth anyone's time.

While I understand why he thought that and I agree that would typically be the case, the reason that I did the edit (and I mentioned this) is because the Trump family isn't just an ordinary wealthy family, but a business dynasty in some sense. It was founded by Friedrich Trump, massively expanded by Fred Trump, and expanded even further by Donald Trump. They even put "Trump" in the names of their products.

I decided to make this talk page because @OmegaAOL took notice to this and decided to do a compromise: keeping the phrasing "wealthy family" but having it hyperlink to "Trump family". However, @Zaathras quickly reverted that by WP:EGG, as users are supposed to know where a link is supposed to take them as best as possible. Unlike the first reversal, I actually agree with this one.

So, from what I'm picking up, there really isn't any unified stance on my edit, or where to go from here with it. I still stand with my edit 100%, and think that the reversal neglected to understand that the Trump family is more than just Trump's family, while the compromise violated WP:EGG. I believe that a talk page is necessary to determine what should actually be done, which I'm well aware that I'm supposed to do, rather than triggering an edit war.

Hopefully we can make things work out. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just saw this. I find it funny that you use the @ pinging on Wikipedia. Most editors just hyperlink to User:user.
  • I absolutely think that the Trump family should be linked to on the lead page. yay, more debates, just after the last one got archived and consensused!
  • I also agree with the WP:EGG reason for reversion.
I think it would be best if we changed the start of the sentence from Born into a wealthy family to Born into the wealthy Trump family. User:Slatersteven, the point of the addition of "Trump family" isn't to state the obvious, but rather to link to the Trump family article. As a further compromise, we could alternatively link to more of the sentence without changing it; as in Born into a wealthy family, to let readers know that this is his particular wealthy family, not the common noun. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying! And I just got 500 edits (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia), so I just saw that the @ worked and used it.
I genuinely believe might not need to compromise. Slatersteven's comment on his edit: "No one is going to think he was born into the Riokerfela family", makes me think that he didn't understand my reasoning for my edit, not that he understood it and disagreed with it. It's very possible that he sees this and just ends up agreeing with me.
Also, vote in the straw poll at the page bottom. You can do this by editing source and writing Support or Oppose. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 23:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. We'll see what Slatersteven has to say about it. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are three options, for now. You can either support linking to Trump family, as in Born into the wealthy Trump family. Alternatively, you can support linking to Born into a wealthy family. Finally you can oppose any changes altogether - although I believe this would not be ideal - keeping the sentence as is: Born into a wealthy family.

Support linking his family in the lead as it's quite notable. I don't have a clear linking preference, both ways are fine. Simply linking "a wealthy family" is sufficient IMO, but if you think the link is not transparent enough, the first option works too. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any link lets be clear, wikilinks are supposed to be for situations where you will need to "find out more". No one needs to be told he was born into the Trump family (his name is a bit of a giveaway). Nor do we need to link to "wealthy family" as it takes no imagination to know what that means. Wikilinks slow down a page, so to include them they hav to provide real benefit, I do not see how this does. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilinks slow down a page Even though this is the second point, I wanted to address it first. The slowdown is so negligible that it should not even be considered, let alone talked about, when adding a single wikilink. I would really like to know who exactly told you that wikilinks slow down a page. They are literally just Web 1.0 hyperlinks. The only possible source of slowdown would be the rendering engine itself and that is not a concern if it runs on any hardware faster than a Commodore 64. Excessive hyperlinks were not even a concern for Web sites in the early 90s or Gopher sites in the late 80s. I am concerned about this because if you say it elsewhere, some people might actually believe it.
    No one needs to be told he was born into the Trump family As PsyKat777 WasTaken and myself have stated quite a few times throughout the discussion, the point is not to tell readers that he was born into the Trump family, but since Trump's parents and family is a notable topic in and of itself, the point is rather to allow readers to view more about the family (that he was born in). Would you also reason that nobody needs to be told that (Google) Chrome is a Web browser, so why link to Web browser in that article's lead? - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 10:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stated my reasons, and none of that affects them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you still hold this belief that wikilinks somehow slow down a page, and you also believe that the Trump family was/is not notable enough and important enough to link? If the first point is true, can you please provide reasoning for that? - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 10:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilinks do not slow down a page from a reader's perspective. They slow down the rendering of page, a tiny bit, which happens every time you publish an edit. Readers do not download what we edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 19:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! Again, the Trump family is more than just Trump's family. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this to him, though. He doesn't seem to get that yet. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try:
    ====================================================
    It wouldn't be like saying:
    "John Cena was born into the Cena family..."
    "Bob Ross was born into the Ross family..."
    "Taylor Swift was born into the Swift family..."
    In those cases, you'd be right. Obviously John Cena was born into the Cena family, Bob Ross into the Ross family, etc. The name of the family is of no importance because it means nothing besides being that person's family. But that's not what's happening here.
    =====================================================
    It would actually be like saying:
    "King Charles III was born into the British royal family..."
    "Thomas Gambino was born into the Gambino crime family..."
    In these cases, you'd be wrong. The British royal family isn't just King Charles' family; it's notable in its own right as a royal family. Similarly, the Gambino crime family isn't just Thomas Gambino's family; it's notable in its own right as a prominent crime family.
    =====================================================
    And, to tie this all in, "Donald Trump was born into the wealthy Trump family..." firmly fits in the second category. The Trump family isn't just Donald Trump's family; it's notable in its own right as a business dynasty of sorts. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the confusion on Slatersteven's part is because the name "TRUMP" has been so tightly associated with Donald himself over the years that it is etched into some people's subconscious that Trump = Donald. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, that could be why we're failing to win him over.
    However, that falls flat because, at the time, it was associated with Fred Trump, not Donald Trump. And, before Fred Trump, it was associated with Friedrich Trump. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With this (bludgeoning) I am out of here with a firm NO, I note that Charles III does not, in fact, link to the Royal family in the lede. So Yes I get it I do not agree that Trump is like Gambino, so find like for like to convince me you are right, not snide comments. Do we say (in the first line) of any politician or rich man's life he was born into his family? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at WP:BLUDGEONING, and don't think it applies because we were trying to have a discussion by bringing up different arguments each time or at least different ways of trying to explain the same argument, not just making exactly the same argument over and over. We're trying to bring something new to the table each time, not trying to hammer in the same point over and over.
    And, OmegaAOL, if he won't agree with us, how good of a consensus should we reach before we go forth with the edit? We have 4 people on our side (me, you, GothicGolem29, and Maxeto0910) and two people against us (GoodDay and SlaterSteven), as well as one person who's been involved in the thread but hasn't made a decision yet (Mandruss). What sort of consensus is needed for an actual resolution? PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be taken as WP:SEALIONING, but he also showed interest in responding, and in addition he made uncalled-for remarks.
    Consensus is not just a vote; it is based on the merit of arguments, which the two against have failed to demonstrate. We need to give it more time for other editors to respond before forming consensus. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. And, reading WP:SEALIONING, I don't think what we're doing qualifies as that, either, because 1) The reason that we're trying to push our POV with others that disagree with us is because we want a change to be made to the article, not just to change people's opinions for the hell of it, and 2) We're not trying to wear people down and make people lose their cool, we're trying to win an argument so that we can get a change made to the article that we want made to the article. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. He chose to put his lot in the debate, but also does not seem to want to respond to any sort of request for elaboration, or any responses to his statements. Slatersteven, this is not a "snide comment", but rather WP:SPADE. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article already links to Trump family before the first section]. Trump put his name on everything. The family wasn't some special thing before him. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the best argument on the opposing side so far.
    It's true: "Trump family" is already linked in both the biography template to the side and in the "See also" for the "Early life and education" section. However, the only official rule as far as I'm aware is that you can only hyperlink something once per heading (which this wouldn't break), and hyperlinks can be placed wherever they would be helpful. And, if that's still a problem, we can just remove the hyperlink in the "See also" for the "Early life and education" heading, since I think it's more relevant in my proposed location than there.
    Also, the Trump family was locally prominent in New York City before Donald Trump, as far as I'm aware. It wasn't some special thing nationwide before him, but it was a special thing before him. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good argument. They were not relevant on a national scale, but in NYC they were definitely notable before Donald took over as patriarch.
    Fred Trump, Donald's father, also put his name on everything. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @PsyKat777 WasTaken and OmegaAOL: It's not necessary to bludgeon editors, who oppose using any links. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia page for bludgeoning says: "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions." and "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building.". If we are bludgeoning, we'll stop, but are you sure that what we're doing is bludgeoning? What we're attempting to do is consensus building. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? I'll stop. Even if what we're doing isn't bludgeoning, this discussion for changing a pretty minor aspect in the lead section is getting REALLY long, so I'll settle down. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan! ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 19:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the reason that I was bludgeoning people in the first place was because I didn't understand how these worked, and I thought that everyone had to be on board for the consensus to actually be put in place. I wasn't trying to shove my ideas down people's throats for no reason, I just didn't understand that I could get what I wanted done without bludgeoning people.
    Speaking of which, who or what decides which side is right for these sorts of things? PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For most little things like this, we talk for awhile, allowing time for good participation (like a week), then count !votes. The discussion merely provides opportunity for editors to be swayed by other arguments. For more important or more complicated things, we sometimes require an uninvolved closer. An uninvolved closer can happen "locally", or one can be requested at WP:RFCL. But even an uninvolved closer will usually close "with the numbers" unless the minority has a clearly stronger policy position. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 19:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, us. Forming consensus is just "broad agreement" and is usually, but not strictly, counted by !votes. If we can't form consensus, there are higher and higher-level modes of remediation until eventually it reaches the ArbCom. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus failed, I'd just give up and leave it as it is. I'm not going to take it that far for one sentence. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be 4-3 by direct vote, and SusanLesch is the only one out of the 3 Oppose who has provided a clear-cut reason. So I think the consensus is more likely to "succeed" than "fail". - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 02:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    until eventually it reaches the ArbCom - Wrong again. ArbCom does not mediate content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 05:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 09:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*::::::And to clarify I mean if no consensus is reached for inclusion or against I will consider one if consensus is found not to include then of course an RFC will not be necessary. I replied too the wrong comment but the point stands. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOCONSENSUS is very clear. The article will stay as it was. Thank you to Space4Time3Continuum2x for spelling out the history and rationale for this decision. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus reached in a discussion an RFC is an option. So I would say it is too soon to say it will remain the same as if no consensus is reached I will be considering an RFC. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course you are correct that an RfC is an option, GothicGolem29. Except this issue is so tiny. Somebody came by here and wanted to trim the Christmas tree with a little wikilink. Not something we must address the entire community about. May I recommend WP:RFCBEFORE? I !vote for the least time-consuming resolution. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

CLOSED
I am closing this as this is not the place for this sort of request. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.


I am requesting you use the considerable power of your office to establish a Crowd Funding effort to replace SNAP benefits until congress can start doing their job. 2603:6081:5200:35A0:A05B:A345:C7F5:2C5D (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to do it. Send his office an email or something, I doubt anyone affiliated with him will see this. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

PsyKat777 WasTaken made some edits and Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted them. Both of you, please use this section to discuss them, as they are unrelated to the current debate at hand. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 16:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go.
I made an edit the same day that I made my controversial "Trump family" edit, that changed this segment of the second paragraph of the lead from:
"He became the president of his family's real estate business in 1971, renamed it the Trump Organization, and began acquiring and building skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses."
to
"He became the president of his family's real estate business in 1971, inheriting the position from his father, Fred Trump, and renamed it The Trump Organization. He began acquiring and building skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses."
After several days, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted the edit, saying that I added too much detail to the lead. I agreed, and tried to make a compromise, but Space4Time reverted it again, saying we had to discuss this on the talk page. It now sits as this:
"He became the president of his father's real estate business in 1971, renamed it The Trump Organization, and began acquiring and building skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses."
Space4Time seemed to believe that they had reverted it to the status quo, but note the "father's" instead of "family's".
I think we have 4 options from here:
1) "He became the president of his family's real estate business in 1971...", and have it actually be the long-standing status quo.
2) "He became the president of his father's real estate business in 1971...", and have it stay as it currently is.
3) "He became the president of [[his father's]] real estate business in 1971...", and have it hyperlinked.
4) "He became the president of his father [[Fred Trump's]] real estate business in 1971...", and have it hyperlinked and not easter egged.
I think 1 is too non-specific and 3 is easter-egging, but I like 2 and 4. I'd rank them from best to worst: 4, 2, 3, 1. However, I want to hear what Space4Time has to say about all of this. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
about all of this: maybe you need more editing experience before editing an article rated contentious? I have self-reverted "father's" to "family's" — hadn't noticed that "family" had crept in in one of the numerous changes last year. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might actually agree if I was getting disagreed with across the board, but a significant percentage of people actually support my edits. Besides, I have 600 edits, I'm extended protected, I can edit these articles. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good addition to the lead in my view. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a link to Fred Trump, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we do not need more than one link. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a good reason. I've seen hyperlinks appear in both the lead section and in the infobox many, many times. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have as well. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs do not make a right, and with that I am out of here with a form, NO as this is unnecessary, Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To all less-technically-proficient editors reading this exchange: Hyperlinks do not, de facto, slow down the rendering or serving of a page. Claiming that they do is technobabble. OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 17:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Slow down"? I don't see anyone making that claim. MOS:NOFORCELINK: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't see the previous exchange in the section directly above this one. His rational is that hyperlinks slow down a webpage. OmegaAOLtalk? 17:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you come across thos bios again, remove the links. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? Wherever I see them? I'd need an official Wikipedia rule saying I should do that, since that would be a lot of articles to change. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://testbook.com/question-answer/which-of-the-following-affects-the-downloading-spe--64aa48166a6b01494751bea9 Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am confused. Why did you argue for hyperlinks slowing down web pages and are now posting a link that claims they do not? What is your position? OmegaAOLtalk? 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked straw poll: Rank the four options and explain why!

I think it's time to end this with a poll. Here are our four options for now:

1) "He became the president of his family's real estate business in 1971...", and have it be the long-standing status quo.
2) "He became the president of his father's real estate business in 1971...", and have it be the status quo without a hyperlink, only slightly changed.
3) "He became the president of [[his father's]] real estate business in 1971...", and have it hyperlinked.
4) "He became the president of his father [[Fred Trump's]] real estate business in 1971...", and have it hyperlinked and not easter egged.

The bold represents what changed, and the hard brackets [] represent hyperlinking. Since we have four different options, two with a hyperlink and two without a hyperlink, a Support or Oppose wouldn't be enough.

Rank the four options from best to worst, and explain why! We can use Ranked choice voting or something to decide the results. Also, avoid replying to people's votes as much as possible to prevent this section from ballooning like the last one did!

4, 2, 1, 3 - 4 is the best and great in my opinion. 2 is good and reads well, but does need a hyperlink in my opinion, as Fred Trump is notable. 3 has a hyperlink but violates the easter egging policy. 1 is the worst, as it's too vague and doesn't hyperlink. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify before my !vote that consensus is generally not a vote so whoever closes may want to factor that in. 4 3 1 2. Better to include the hyper link and his dad's name to give more info and allow people to click the page. Then I put 2 and 1 behind 3 as that also includes a link and then 1 ahead of 2 as that was the longstanding consensus before it was changed.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 - I've no interest in the other three options. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Time's up, and it hasn't even been one whole day. Bishonen, any thoughts on the current straw polls on this page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=1320091036"