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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

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. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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 14 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. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (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)

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) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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)

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. (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 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. (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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 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. 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

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.
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)

Business career - Golf courses

Hello Nikkimaria, your recent revert of reliably sourced context doesn't help with expanding a woefully thin "sub-section", which is barely 2 sentences long. I don't see why his tenure as president and his golf hobbies are necessarily mutually exclusive. So, why is this an issue and are there other ways we can expand this section? Cheers. DN (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The better solution in this case would be reorganizing the section to avoid tiny subsections - I've now implemented that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's an improvement as well. DN (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but unfortunately I'm currently prevented from reverting by 24-hr BRD which you violated with this revert after I had challenged your original "trim" of longstanding material. Tiny subsections? Four subsections for distinct business ventures, two long ones ("Manhattan developments" and "Atlantic City casinos") and two short ones ("Mar-a-Lago" and "Golf courses"), all of them boiled down to summary-level. The real estate section now is a big wall of text jumping from Manhattan to Atlantic City to Manhattan to Atlantic City to Manhattan, with Mar-a-Lago buried somewhere in Manhattan and the golf courses in Riverside South. Not an improvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The 24 hours are up, so I partially reverted. I moved Trump's visits to his businesses during his presidency to the presidency/conflicts of interest section and combined the Mar-a-Lago and golf sections to one clubs section. That should take care of the objections to the two "tiny sections" and to the visits to his golf clubs being about the presidency rather than his business career. The visits were about both — the president was taking business to and advertising the private business he owned and hadn't put in a blind trust. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, padding out still-small sections is moving in the wrong direction - the combined section is not overlong (and could be condensed) and a chronological structure is more logical than the sort-of-thematic one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I like S4T's work. Yes, things should be listed chronologically, but that doesn't mean sections can't be organized by "theme". It's easier for readers to find what they are looking for, rather than searching through broad subjects by year. DN (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, regarding this revert: being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion, and thus far consensus has not been established for that addition. Please undo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you could point out the consensus to exclude, I would appreciate it. DN (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, as per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So there is no consensus to exclude? I think S4TC has explained their reasoning logically. Unless you have a more logical explanation as to why it should be removed other than "not an improvement", in the meantime you are free to use a banner to see of other editors feel like weighing in. DN (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required. There is also no reasoning that has been presented as to why this factoid merits inclusion - if you have any to present by all means, but in the interim it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you telling me I'm not allowed to participate here? DN (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, nope, I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will ask and see if I am violating any rules here. As far as I can tell, the consensus right now is for inclusion 2 to 1. That may change, but I do not see the urgency here unless there is some violation. Give me a moment. DN (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I have reached out for guidance. DN (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see if this article is under WP:CRP, but I don't see it posted here. DN (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria, I made a bold edit, you challenged it, removing longstanding material along with it, and then DN challenged your edit. You would be right if I had reverted your edit but in this case I think the onus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS currently is on you to obtain consensus. My reason for adding: it's remarkable for a former president to be working at a club, with duties — according to the justification Trump's attorney submitted to the town of Palm Beach — including "overseeing the property, evaluating the performance of employees, suggesting improvements to the club's operations, reviewing the club's financials, attending events, greeting guests and recommending candidates for membership". Not quite on the same level as 91 felony counts but far from the norm. This Palm Beach Daily News article may be a better source than the current Forbes cite: (Palm Beach may have been looking for a way to avoid another 80-foot flagpole lawsuit). Background: Trump was broke in 1993, selling off property to stave off personal bankruptcy. He signed an agreement with Palm Beach that allowed him to turn Mar-a-Lago, which was zoned as a private residence, into a private club and sell memberships. Part of the agreement was that members of the club, including proprietors, were not allowed to live there for more than 21 days per year and more than 7 days at a time. He’d been violating the agreement all along but nobody paid attention until he starting showing up with the presidential motorcade and a throng of reporters in tow. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in EDITCONSENSUS suggesting that an additional revert changes the burden.

Your explanation doesn't support that this factoid is significant to a high-level understanding of the subject's real estate career. Details like this are best addressed at a narrower article. Here it is sufficient to say that it's a residence without getting into the when why and how. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

When someone reverts a change it suggests that the edit in question should probably be brought to the talk page. As such, DN should've probably brought the edit to the talkpage instead of reverting back to Space4T's bold version. I tend to agree that reverting a good-faith revert is problematic (especially in WP:CTOP space), and I do think that DN should revert his edit, but no policy or guideline is being broken here as far as I'm aware.

While the burden, in theory, hasn't changed, you still need to demonstrate why you think that the content should be excluded using concrete policies/guidelines or reliable sources, which I don't think you've done. Previously it was a sourceless, reasoning-less squabble, but now that Space4T has provided a myriad of sources you need to do the same, or at the very least scrutinize the sources and reasoning present. Otherwise it'll just become a cycle of people trying to prove to you that an edit belongs in the article, as opposed to productive discussion. Cessaune [talk] 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The reports about the legal requirements for him to make it his residence seem unique and subsequently prolific in quite a few sources other than Forbes. It doesn't seem any more or less of a factoid than golfing being his "primary form of exercise." DN (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the excessive length of this article I have no doubt that there are other details that warrant consideration for removal or moving elsewhere (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). But the assumption that sourcing equals inclusion is problematic, and not consistent with policy. We also need to consider the appropriate weight for particular topics within the context of their sections, and what level of detail is appropriate - both of these considerations support leaving the claim (and the niche discussion of legal requirements given above, without which the significance of the claim is unclear) to a more specific article rather than this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, at least part of measuring WEIGHT is prevalence among reliable sources, but rather than get into a policy debate, why not just take it to NPOVN? DN (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, because NPOVN requires discussion on the talk page first; second, because its scope could only partly address the issues with this addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your original argument was based on WP:CRP, which is not in effect, hence, you lost that argument. DN (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You were the only one to raise CRP in relation to this discussion, as far as I can see. Do you have a response to the points I have raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood when you said this... "there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required."...and this "I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change.... I've been clear that I prefer the format and reasoning provided by S4T. Until someone has a better solution I'm going to drop the STICK. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also nothing suggesting that the first revert can't be reverted by another editor. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. Your edit (i.e., reverting my bold edit) also met with disagreement, and the third new edit now has presumed consensus. If—then, no end to the loop, unless it turns into edit-warring. Change through editing, per the last paragraph — in this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit being restored doesn't change the fact that it was and is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It was disputed on the basis of CRP, which was a mistake. DN (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Rape issue and the lead

Shouldn't the fact that Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial be in the lead? It is a highly relevant biographical detail about someone, that he was found to have raped a woman in a judicial proceeding.

And yes: it was rape. It wasn't rape under the anachronistic definition of NY Criminal Law (because it was with his hands), and hence the finding of the court that it was "sexual abuse," not rape, for purposes of NYC law. But the jury did find that Trump had raped Carroll, since the conduct he was found to have to engaged in [forced penetration with his hands] fits within the common meaning of rape. A filing by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, rejecting Trump's motion for a second trial in the Carroll case, clarified this. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

To quote the judge:

The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.' Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. HistorianEzzat (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead says that In 2023, a civil trial jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. We had discussions about sexual abuse vs. rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law", archived here and here, and went with what the jury's decision said. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd take issue with common meaning of rape. Digital penetration is not what I think of when I hear the word. The entry in my dictionary-of-choice says "usually sexual intercourse", so, if there's a "common meaning", it would be that. Interpretations may differ in other parts of the world, but this is an American article. "Sexual abuse" is even more vague, but we're giving Trump the benefit of the ambiguity for purposes of the lead. It's a common problem with leads: there is not enough room to be as accurate and nuanced as we'd like.

But all this is fairly irrelevant per policy. I haven't reviewed the previous discussions, but I assume they concluded that the word "rape" was not used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to say "rape" without explanation (a necessity in the lead), you'll need to show otherwise. You have cited only one secondary source.

This does not necessarily preclude further elaboration in the body section, bearing in mind that it links to an article dedicated to the subject. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your quibble about "common meaning" is with the judge, not with editors. I'm old enough to remember when "no" often literally meant "yes" (being coy and shy was mandated seductive behavior, so a soft "no" wasn't intended to be understood as a hard "no"), but now any "no" means "no", and rape includes any unwanted oral, rectal, or vaginal penetration without advance permission, and not necessarily with a penis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said: fairly irrelevant per policy. Forgive the off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say not, as it is not a settled issue. When the SC decides we can say what they say (assuming they say its a valid argument). Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, neither the rape of Carol, or the civil trial occurred while he was president. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything ? Or are the editors as usual diverting the issue via Rhetoric ? If it was you...you would be in jail and yet you will defend a sexual predator which makes you an accomplice Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not, but there has been an edit between my post and yours that moved something I replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

More rhetoric..what does that mean in English ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What it says, is that between my post and your post, the comments I was referring to had been moved, I am unsure how this is rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My fault. Another editor mistakenly inserted the "The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25" thread in the middle of this section. Slatersteven replied to that. I noticed the misplaced thread and moved it without moving Slatersteven's comments. Confusion ensued. Sorry for the rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

i don't think we can use the r-word unless many reliable sources start referring to it as such, if they begin to call out the antiquated definition used by the State of New York. ValarianB (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's all rhetoric...the editors are incapable of saying anything here in plain English just like lawyers in a courtroom..that's how a small number of people are able control the narrative..anyone who doesn`t know what a rape is has never experienced it...needs to be in the lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but we are governed by law (and policies) and policy is clear, we can't say a person committed a crime unless they have been proven guilty of having committed that crime (see wp:blp). Trump was only found guilty of sexual assault, we could say "However the judge said that he committed rape within the common use of the term" or somesuch. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We are governed by force Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like such a dumb, ChatGPT-generated bumper sticker, I'm not even sure how to respond. If that's all you have left to offer, then it seems like this thread is done. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No we are governed by wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You know as well as I do he is a sexual predator..it is relevant regardless of who gets the last word here Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was rape; both the judge and sources support it. I added this sentence to the lead, with "sexually abused" to avoid bikeshedding. The Trump claim that "it wasn't rape" relies on a technicality in New York law. The federal judge said it unequivocally: Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law. It's been litigated, it's a settled issue; I don't understand on what basis people say otherwise. DFlhb (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Under the law, Trump is innocent of the crime of rape, and also innocent of any crime at all, because he has not (yet) been convicted of any crime in a court of law. People in civil trials are not entitled to any presumption of innocence, and they also cannot be found guilty of any crime. Whatever we write about Trump, we should be clear about this distinction, and clear that Trump is currently presumed innocent of any crime. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In the real world..not a courtroom...if you think he is innocent you are deluded..he is a known sexual predator..I will never win this fight..I don`t intend to..you are protecting a pedophile and you know it..all for the sake of maintaining capitalism in a world full of starving children..you don`t have a conscious..but you will win this meaningless war of words..that peice of garbage belongs in prison and so do his accomplices Anonymous8206 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is sex trafficking bad? Is murder bad? Is rape bad, even "digital" rape?

Yes, yes, and yes.

What about fornication? What about abortion? What about pork consumption?

There is no objective good or bad. As such, it's not about what we think at all: it's about what RSs think. We base our characterizations on reliable sources, not our own opinions. And, if you think the people on this page are trying to "protect" Trump, you haven't been paying attention to many of the recent discussions.

It's fine to have opinions, but save them for... I don't know, Reddit, or Twitter. Comments like this don't help to improve the encyclopedia. Cessaune [talk] 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is the apparently unshakable view that Wikipedia policy is an impediment to Truth (or a failure to comprehend the policy). Applicable shortcuts are WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, and would include WP:DE if the comments were more frequent. For now, it's a mere annoyance easily enough ignored, which I try to do whenever possible. No competent editor is including the comments in consensus assessments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:npa and wp:agf we are governed by policies such as wp:blp which means we cannot say someone committed a crime they have not been prosecuted for, even if we think they are guilty. We are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to present what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Off topic. Approaching chronic disruption worthy of WP:AE complaint. Please do not respond to this editor user per DFTT. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia is edited by a select few..meaningless articles regarding say celebrities or sports are generally ignored by most people..an article like this will be viewed by millions..everyone that edits these articles has an agenda of some kind which is why I refuse to edit articles..I am honest..in the end whoever is the slickest rhetorical bullshit artist will get their way here it has nothing to do with the truth..I will not..I am not a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer ie politician...Donald Trump is a known sexual predator who has preyed on underage girls..it is common knowledge Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) As a final statement, if Wikipedia is edited by a "select few", yet you "refuse to edit articles", how are you helping to combat this "agenda" you speak of? Cessaune [talk] 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging

in this edit:

1. Boxing matches - importance tag. See this edit. I replaced one of the cited sources (NYT - it only mentioned that Trump had won the bidding for the Tyson-Spinks match in 1988) with a source we were already using elsewhere, rephrased the sentence, and removed the tag.
2. Trump Shuttle - importance tag. I removed the sentence, we have the link to Trump Shuttle where interested readers can find the details of yet another business failure.
3. Trump University - excessive detail tag. $35,000 for a seminar that offers no degree or transferable credits - that’s close to the U.S. average for one year of college (including books, supplies, and daily living expenses) in 2023–2024 (in-state tuition and fees at ranked public colleges is $10,662, out-of-state $23,630). IMO, such a price tag for what was adjudged to be a worthless seminar is a relevant detail in a section that ends with Trump paying $25 million in restitution to the former customers.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It was judged to be a worthless seminar that offers no degree or transferable credits - what difference does it make to that whether it cost 1k or 100k? It's not a detail that is necessary to understand the events at a high level. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is 99k. The difference is wearing your winter coat for another year and eating Velveeta instead of real cheese or losing your house or retirement fund. The numbers are s.th. readers can relate to. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My question was more what difference does it make to an understanding of the article, but if the bar is what readers can relate to, then we should remove the case values instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump Foundation

• User:Nikkimaria "reframed" the longstanding content here. The reframing included the removal of Trump's private foundation having accepted money from other donors. Original version:

In the foundation's final years, its funds mostly came from donors other than Trump, who did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 until 2014. The foundation gave to health-care- and sports-related charities, as well as conservative groups.

Reframed version:

The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities and conservative groups. Trump did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 to 2014.

• I rephrased and added details on the other donors, based on a more current source here.

From 1987 to 2006, Trump gave his foundation $5.4 million which had been spent by the end of 2006. After donating a total of $65,000 in 2007–2008, he stopped donating any personal funds to the charity, which received millions from other donors, including $5 million from Vince McMahon. The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, and charities that held events at Trump properties.

• Nikkimaria then removed all of it, both the longstanding content and the details & source I added.
• I reverted their edit, then self-reverted to the longstanding content because I'm not sure whose second edit counts as a revert or simple editing. As I said in my edit summary, Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years is relevant information for his personal bio and as the lead-in to the second paragraph. The original content cites Fahrenthold's April 2016 article correctly which said that Trump did not donate to his foundation from 2009–2014; Fahrenthold's September 2016 article makes it clear that Trump did not contribute at all from 2009 onward.

Sources

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer not to become the token tie breaker here. Nikkimaria, is it possible to start trying to find some consensus with S4T in regard to your edits, in order to avoid this back-and-forth between you two? This is a collaborative project, after all. DN (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

S4T, Nikkimaria did not really "remove" as much as copy-edited. How essential is "Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years" to his personal Bio according to policy? DN (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Not. That's why I moved some detail to the foundation article where it is more appropriately placed.

I would be very open to seeing any ideas S4T may have on other ways to decant detail and streamline the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years Unless I'm mistaken that information is not covered in any of the versions presented here. Readers are not given a reason to understand why the external donations, or Trump's lack of donations, are significant.

edit: I'm wrong, it's implicitly explained later, but we should concisely explain the rationale behind why the NYAG "determined the foundation to be in violation of state law for soliciting donations"; that's the central piece of info of the section. The paragraph we're discussing is mere context/background for that, and the original version (not Nikkimaria or yours) is enough to those ends. DFlhb (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not copy-editing if someone removes material from this page, even if it's moved to another page. At summary-level, we should provide enough information for readers to decide whether they want to look up the details in the main article. The Trump Foundation was a tax-exempt family foundation that was supposed to be "governed and funded by family members and must meet all the same IRS guidelines for private foundations". Instead, they solicited donations from others, as well as guided others to make payments for services rendered under the guise of donations, such as the McMahons' $5 million "donation" to the tax-exempt foundation for Trump's appearances in 2007's Wrestlemania 23 and the June 2009 RAW storyline of Trump allegedly buying WWE and selling it back to McMahon the next week. Trump used foundation funds as a personal piggy bank, e.g., for paying the fine in the 80-foot flagpole lawsuit we discussed in "Business career - Golf courses", above.

Flagpole settlement

Trump had racked up a fine of $120,000 and counting when he sued the town of Palm Beach in 2006 for "abridgment to his constitutional right to free speech" for not allowing him to violate the town's restrictions on the size of private flagpoles and flags. The lawsuit ended with the town allowing him a 70-foot pole instead of the 42 feet allowed under the ordinance and waiving the fine, with Trump agreeing to make a $100,000 donation to a veterans' charity. He didn't use his own money, though, he directed the foundation to pay.

The foundation, created in 1988, received more money from outside donors since 2001, i.e., during more than half of its existence, not just in its final years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. DN (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the "final years" wording isn't good; I also missed the lack of mention of charities that held events at Trump properties in the original version, which is worth mentioning. I now see the point of your version & support it. I've also tried fixing the issue I brought up; feel free to bold-refine or kick it back to the talk page if needed. DFlhb (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Melania in the infobox

According to her bio article, she was born Melanija Knavs (with a "j") and changed her name to Melania Knauss when she became a model (~19 years before Trump acquired her). Our infobox shows "Melania Knavs"; this is an odd and unexplained hybrid of the two names and is inconsistent with the "Melania Knauss" that we use in the body. Suggest changing the infobox to "Melania Knauss", as this was her name at the time of acquisition. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Acquired... Cessaune [talk] 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

¿Qué? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's just an interesting term. "Melania Knauss" makes the most sense, assuming everything you've said is correct (it is). Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump appears to have married someone legally named Melanija Knavs, according to her WH bio (the Germanized version was supposed to further her modeling career, if I remember correctly). Our cited source uses "Melania Knauss", and per WP:PSEUDONYM that's probably what we should use. Speaking about acquisitions: Ivana Zelníčková's legal name was actually Ivana Winkelmayr, née Zelníčková, on account of her having acquired the last name and Austrian citizenship through the unconsummated marriage to Austrian citizen Alfred Winkelmayr for the purpose of obtaining said citizenship. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done barring objection.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Lowered bond amount

Greetings, all. Re: New York State's civil fraud case

As the news came that the New York Appellate Court, First Division, lowered the bond amount Trump had to post and granted an extension of payment, I added to that section the following: "On March 25, New York's Appellate Division ruled that Trump can post a lower bond, "in the amount of $175 million," and granted a delay of payment by 10 days," followed by a source to that effect.

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted my edit giving the following reason: "The lower bond doesn't affect the trial court's decision which stands unless overruled on appeal." I found the reason frankly absurd since the information about a lower bond quite evidently did not affect the ruling for the payment itself and reverted the edit. After being reminded of the WP:CTOP procedure, I deleted my edit and I'm now bringing this here for discussion. I still cannot fathom why anyone would delete the information about the lower-amount decision and leave the article without any mention of it just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete. Even if they were correct in this, the obviously proper move forward would be to add the ostensibly missing information rather the delete the entire text. So, I'd appreciate some light in this Alice tunnel, please. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• We are not a newspaper, so in truth, none of this should be in the article until the trials are over. But what does this tell us about the trial? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You must have failed to notice that the Donald Trump article is one of the biggest in the Wikipedia. (And rightly so since the world's media, and most prominently U.S. media, or, in other words, a plethora of sources, are full of Trump-related news every day without fail.) Wikipedia "not being a newspaper" means mainly that Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today, does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it, and does not "expose the truth" through some editor's investigative work. It's a good essay but, obviously, there are news, even breaking news, that are posted up in Wikipedia and must be posted up. Case in point, this development. If the amount had not been lowered, Trump faced a seizing of assets. I assume if that were to happen, it would be accepted as notable and important to include here. But we do not want to have the information about the threat that was hanging (still is, actually) over Trump's finances -- because it looks like ...newspaper work. Right. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Glad to hear that the Lord granted your wish. just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete — huh? My edit summary may have been a tad obtuse, definition 2b, but that's your opinion, not mine. Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands. The appeals court's Lex Trump makes it likelier that Trump will be able to post bond and file an appeal but, until he does, WP:NOTNEWS applies. If he does appeal, our second sentence should simply replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving in mysterious ways is indeed an attribute of deity; poor insolent me had you down as merely a human editor. You write, "Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands." And where, pray, was any mention or even an insinuation that this is not a simple, solid fact? Nowhere, and certainly not in any source - not even in the most fanatically pro-Trump sources. So, if you want to replace replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed" if and when he files it, fine, but that was not ever a problem involving my edit. To return to the issue that was inexplicably (see above) raised, the matter of the size of the bond was and still is very much "news of the day" for many a day, as can be trivially shown. Which is why your revert is inexcusable: It leaves out of the article a very important aspect of the legal process. I truly cannot understand such a reasoning. Perhaps the subject itself of the biography distorts our approach, like a black hole. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it's very much "news of the day", and WP is not a newspaper. This article isn't about the legal process; those details belong in New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The expression "news of the day" that I used, coupled with "for many a day," which you conveniently omit, denotes an important event that made "front page" in the United States, and in not a small number of countries around the world. This is not some one-off pyrotechnic but a game changer for Trump's finances. In the context of Tramp's legal travails, it was an important development, since without the significant decrease in the bond amount, Trump, as widely reported, faced a potential seizing of assets (check your sources) or bankruptcy (ditto). This is clearly not Wikipedia-as-newspaper but reporting a significant event. Omitting it, especially in this article, about the specific legal case, is a serious encyclopaedic misstep. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. You write, " This article isn't about the legal process." The article is the biography of Trump. It's a very thorough, extended biography. It includes practically all his legal entanglements. This is about the N.York state civil case. We're dealing here with that section in the article! So, it is precisely "here," i.e. in the section about the case, that the information about lowering the bond amount belongs, no matter how we choose to dance around this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Update Trump Net Worth to$6B, Add DJT Stock to Business Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Update the Business section to include DJT stock that had its 1st trading day today, 3/26/2024. Per this article, Trump’s Net Worth needs to be increased to $6.4 Billion: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people 136.175.96.252 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus #5: "Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires." Besides, that stock value will likely be highly volatile. We're not going to constantly update. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

True dat (dose). Although #5 says it's currently as of 2020, so it may bear an update from Forbes. Anybody care to take that on? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the article was updated in 2021 without updating #5. Shame on us, but we probably still need another update. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Spun off at Net worth update, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Potentia of Invalid Edit Revert on Truth Social Floatation

@Mandruss I urge you to revert your edit Thanks Jaymailsays (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument? Declined, for the reasons given in my edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You offered an invalid opinion, not a reason? It verges on vandalism. Jaymailsays (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. Wait for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing invalid about the revert. And be careful with the word "vandalism". It verges on WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's excessive detail in his personal bio and belongs in the related article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Excessive?

His wealth increased considerably overnight, at a time when by his own submissions he was unable to raise the original court bond amount and needed a further ten days to provide a much lesser amount. The bullying tactics are surprising, given the importance of Truth Social as an asset, albeit a paper one. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute. He posted multiple times that he had $500 million in cash at the same time his lawyers said he couldn't afford to pay less than that. And I have no idea who you are claiming is "bullying". As far as this stock, experts say it is not worth anything close to its price, insiders sold shares before it opened, the concept that we would add this to his net worth one day after an IPO makes no sense for an encyclopedia, the variance will be enormous meaning we will be wrong if we don't change it every ten minutes. Just today, it went up 24% and then dropped 9%, and it's still morning. There is no way this number belongs in an encyclopedia at this time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #5. We use Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings from the Forbes annual list of billionaires. Axios writes that Truth Social "is trading like a meme stock, meaning its market value is completely divorced from its financial reality". It has "far fewer users and less income than any social network that has gone public before. ... Meme stocks like GameStop and AMC that soared during the pandemic-era retail investor bump have since crashed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Love the way as an amateur you try to explain stock trading. Keep digging, it is very entertaining.

All wealth fluctuates. A fact of life and death. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

how bout you try restating your opinion without the pretty blatant personal attack, before it becomes actionable. the strikethrough format would a fitting format to utilize. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Net worth update

Resolved

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Spinoff from the above edit request.

• Consensus #5 says: "...from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the 2020 edition, $2.1B/1001st/275th)...". Apparently, and my limited memory concurs, the "275th" came from the Forbes 400 Richest People in America. So that must have been in the article in 2020, but has since been removed (as unimportant?) without regard for #5. Now we mention only the global ranking. Should the discrepancy be resolved by adding the U.S. ranking back into the article, or by removing it from #5?
• At the top of Forbes's global ranking, it says #1217; I'm guessing that's the annual ranking. Scrolling down, it says "$2.6B", "as of 3/27/24", and "#1285 in the world today". I don't see how we can get a matching annual net worth and ranking from that. I vaguely recall that it was similarly confusing in 2020, I don't know how this was resolved then, and I'm too lazy to read the discussions to try to find out. Forbes's 2020 page is no longer available to provide a clue. Did we take the annual ranking and the real-time net worth and call it a day? If we did, we lost verifiability for the net worth very quickly. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But wait, it gets worse. The article currently says: "In their 2021 billionaires ranking, Trump's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion (1,299th in the world)." It follows with a citation with the title, "#1001 Donald Trump", accessed April 2020. And following the link takes you to the page I linked above, which verifies neither the $2.4B nor the 1,299th. What's the point of a citation that doesn't (and can't) provide verifiability? Just to give the appearance that we're complying with policy, with the hope nobody will notice that we're doing anything but? What a hot mess. If we can't do better than this in the long term, we should revisit #5 and find a better methodology. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I just updated consensus #5 and the "Wealth" section with the 2023 annual ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. I removed the Forbes 400 listing (nth in the U.S.). It isn't mentioned in #5, and he's not on the 2023 list, even though a search for his name says he's #343. This is your edit on April 13, 2020; someone updated to the 2021 numbers without updating the access date. The numbers appear to be correct, according to the 2021 list on the Wayback Machine. If the billionaires' assets aren't publicly traded, it's mostly guesstimates, AFAIK, and, as Trump told some court or other, his wealth fluctuates based on how rich he happens to feel on any given day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pill to help me stomach the deviation from established process. We haven't often modified a consensus item (removal of U.S. ranking) because it was ignored, without revisiting it and reaching a consensus to amend it. Otherwise, that looks like an improvement, at least. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If including the U.S. ranking wasn't part of the consensus in the supporting discussions, disregard the above. Still lazy, maybe permanently. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Pavlovian conditioning? I saw "currently" and went into update mode. I self-reverted. I suggest removing the parenthesis with the 2020 numbers, "Forbes annual list of billionaires" is self-explanatory. As for the url we use in the article, the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all (and Trump didn’t make it in 2023). The "static list" AlexEng mentioned in the discussion is this one, which isn't static at all. It’s updated daily, and when you scroll down, you get to Trump's stats for the previous year, including the Forbes billionaires list, or the last year Trump made the list, i.e., currently the 2022 Forbes 400 list. The other option, which I used in the article, is the World’s Billionaires List where you can enter Trump’s name in the "search" text field to show Trump's ranking for the previous year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all -- As I tried to indicate, if the consensus didn't include inclusion of the U.S. ranking, removal of that from #5 was the correct action. Consensus items should always be made to accurately reflect the underlying discussions, even when discrepancies are discovered years later.

I could live with removing the parenthesis from #5, which moots the preceding.

My only gripe with your article edit is that its citation links to the home page of the Forbes billionaires list, instead of its page for Trump. If that's necessary for verifiability, I'm missing it. I generally dislike citations that make readers search for something, when that can be avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Trump's page is that it only lists the current ranking (today it's #413) and "worth" (down $335 million from yesterday's). It mentions the previous annual net worth but not the ranking. To see that you also need to do something, i.e., scroll down to the "Forbes lists" section. We'll probably wind up with daily "corrections" of worth and ranking in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the #1217 at the top is the previous annual ranking, matching the $2.5B. No? Then what is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

- in my defense, it's dwarfed by "Donald Trump" further down. I changed the url and the title. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No defense necessary, only capitulation. ;) I'll "remove the parenthesis" and we can put this to bed, again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

By what right, Space4Time3Continuum2x, did you "update," i.e. changed, a consensus in Wikipedia without first engaging in a wide, talk-page consultation first? As I recall, that policy is quite clear about changing consensus and I do not recall anything about "updating." Moreover, a helpful fellow editor recently reminded me of the need, in specific circumstances, to engage in dialogue before edits. And, by the way, to prevent chaff, WP:BOLD cannot be invoked. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If it changes it needs updating, we are an encyclopedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See my response to Mandruss. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump gets news now for recent wealthy gain

@Mandruss: You reverted me here: [2]. I did not mention the Forbes list, but instead Forbes news source. There are other reliable sources saying the same information about his sudden wealth gain from putting the company that does Truth Social on the stock market.

On March 26th, 2024, Forbes reported that Trumps wealth rose from $2.3 billion to $6.4 billion after Trump Media & Technology Group was put on the stock exchange. Dream Focus 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We need to take a longer view look at the stock than just IPO day. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the whole point of consensus #5 is to avoid having to track net worth at more than annual frequency. Also WP:NOTNEWS. See similar discussions on this page, here and here. If Forbes reports ~$6B in this year's annual evaluation, we'll certainly update the article to reflect that. Likewise, if it subsequently falls by billions before their 2025 evaluation, we'll certainly over-report it until then. So this methodology can work in Trump's favor or not, depending on which direction the wind blows between annual evaluations, but always in Wikipedia's favor. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It still a well covered news event, so it doesn't matter if its included in any ranking or whatnot, this notable event should be included. Dream Focus 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." We have ignored other "well covered" interim net worth changes, and it matters not that this is a big one. Being well-covered doesn't require inclusion, far from it (common misconception that needs to be stamped out). We have a perfectly legitimate local consensus against your rationale on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the 2023 annual list is any indication, Forbes will be publishing their 2024 annual list in April. I have no idea whether they'll use the guesstimates of the day or some sort of average. Whatever it is, we'll update our article accordingly and live with that until Forbes publishes the 2025 annual list (or until a new consensus forms), even if and when the Trump Media stock crashes and burns in the fall. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And this, people, is why we wait. Trump’s Net Worth Falls by $1 Billion as His Media Company’s Stock Plunges Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Its still an import news item that should be included, then updated as necessary. We don't update wealth constantly that keeps fluctuating, but we aren't just mentioning a number, but listing details about a notable event in the person's life. Dream Focus 01:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Hint: The word "nonsense" doesn't strengthen an argument.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Which has not aged well, this is why wp:news exists, to stop us from having to update something every week. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the source provided by you, i.e., I read the article instead of just the headline. Quote: "Trump’s net worth dropped from $2.5 billion on the 2023 Forbes billionaires list to $2.3 billion on this year’s soon-to-be-released edition, knocking him down more than 200 spots, to No. 1,438." Forbes published the 2024 rankings today and, sure enough, there's Trump at #1,438. I updated the "Wealth" section to reflect that ranking. Kind of an unexpected development but it looks as though Trump will have to suffer through the indignity of being #1,438 for a year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Post Presidency (2021-present)

• Moved from my talk page... Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to read the notices and warnings above the editing window: The Contentious_topics procedure applies to Donald Trump. "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." You failed to adhere to the procedure with this edit and the source you added here. Please, self-revert.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will do this evening. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Friendly Reply. All I did was add a comment clarifying what I felt was incorrect evaluation of Trump's seeming number of successful endorsements. The article stated; A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections. It was inaccurately presented to the reader as if it was some great and unique accomplishment. The source given, (#670), was a New York Times article and required a subscription to be viewed so it could not be easily verified by the reader. In order to provide a more balanced view, I rightfully added: Many of these candidates were either unopposed or incumbents who already held their seats using [3] as a valid reference. You reverted with the summary...Misunderstanding? The content is about the Republican primaries, not the general election. So...the kerfuffle was your misunderstanding. Not mine. The BBC article was about the Republican primaries not the general election. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to self revert. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC).

I will revert if other editors agree w/ Space. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see here, [4], that my effort to bring clarity has been reverted. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As to content, I don't care. As to process, I'm inclined to take Space4T's word for it unless you can show the error of his thinking. Process at this article is pretty much inviolable, having been established by higher powers than us, and nobody understands it better, or is more committed to it, than Space4T. In my experience, Space4T does not selectively apply process rules when they serve his purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should delete the sentence A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections instead of adding more material about the performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 United States elections. Your proposed and the BBC source may be better placed at 2022_United_States_elections#Democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion would be satisfactory. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the future I will think carefully before contributing anything to improve this article. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that for any article. Good to see you again, by the way; it's been years. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Likewise. Glad to see you are still doing important work. I was passing by and noticed Citizen Trump getting false credit. I should have known it was a trap! Big mistake! But good to see you. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Buster7: Trap? Nah, we don't do traps, just the occasional not-thinking-it-all-the-way-through. Thanks for pointing out the credit where credit wasn't due. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Outbreak

Regarding this edit: this isn't an article about the outbreak, it's an article about Trump, so what happened to Trump is what is essential to be included in this article. Additionally "struggling with the disease" is unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An outbreak is more than person getting sick, even if that person is the president, and his WH turning into a hot spot (WaPo cite) for the virus seems fitting for the way he handled the pandemic. "Struggling with the disease" is from the caption of one of the photographs in the NY Times cite. "Unwell" seems a bit weak. On the official video of his return, he yanked off the mask and gasped for air on the balcony. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that an outbreak is more than one person getting sick, but this article is about that one person. And we can't copy phrasing directly from a source like that. We could use "seriously unwell" if strengthening is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed "still struggling with the disease" to "still infectious and unwell". Several of the cited sources cite Dr. Conley, his WH physician, "describing the president's condition as improving, though he said Trump was 'not out of the woods yet'". Conley also said that Trump could remain contagious "for several more days at least". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I rephrased the section to clarify that his case was part of an outbreak, leaving the details to the relevant article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

This talk page is currently under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is about our consensus #25 and has been open since January 23 without notifying editors of this article. Sneaky (not by Nikkimaria), but justice ultimately prevails. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Trade war

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing them; {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}. We've now got the same trade war discussed in multiple subsections, which is confusing for readers. Please pick one and consolidate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I challenged your edit, and instead of taking your proposed change to the Talk page you added a tag: your edit, my revert, your tagging, my removal. (I don’t get {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}.)

I don't see how we can present Trade without China or China without the trade war. "Trade" focuses on U.S. trade relations, including with China, and on Trump's misunderstanding/misrepresentation, to this day, of how tariffs work:

and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[343] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China.[344]

"China" mentions the trade war among a number of other things:

As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure

Both have inline links to China–United States trade war — different emphasis, and we don't know that readers will read both subsections. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I probably don't have the whole story here. But, please do not unilaterally place maintenance tags on this article. Please discuss here on the talk page first. And personally, I want to add, please also obtain consensus for placing a maintenance tag on this article. Also, my personal opinion is - since there are many editors involved on this page, a maintenance tag will never (ever) be needed. And adding a tag to this page might be construed as disruptive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not how maintenance tags work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't write subsections to stand alone. I've taken a stab at reorganizing the section in a different way to avoid the repetition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Taken a stab? While there's a discussion on the Talk page? Kindly self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I've done that for the moment. Now do you have a substantive response to that revision? It retains the misunderstanding/misrepresentation component that you felt was important to include, while also addressing some of the oversectioning of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria. I looked at your proposed version of the Foreign policy section. I liked the way you had the more general aspects in the lead paragraphs and had the country specific aspects in each country's subsection. Before the change, the subsection Trade did not seem to fit the subsection organization. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Starship paint already told you the purpose of the current structure of the article - what you see as "repetitive." So, now we are the discussion phase and I recommend discussing before editing again. Also, you are on a contentious topic page. That means editing here requires extra care. Please see the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES template at the top of this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, they are both good. What are we looking for here? Reintegrate the section on "Trade" into the other two sections? What seems to work best? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The current text starts with a section on Trump’s general foreign policy/opinions on relations with other countries: America first, admiration for authoritarian regimes, antagonism towards allies and NATO, lack of consistency and reliability. That’s followed by a subsection devoted to trade, including his incomprehension of how tariffs work, as exemplified by his remarks on the tariffs he imposed on China. The China subsection also has one short clause on the trade war which was the stated cause for the proposed reorganization, ie., to avoid the repetition. IMO, it’s a necessary repetition because China is the U.S.’s largest supplier of goods and its third largest customer.

The proposed text hides Trump’s lack of understanding of tariffs in the subsection on China. It moves the remaining content of the "Trade" subsection in between Trump’s self-description as nationalist and having an America First foreign policy and his actual foreign policy. For some reason that I haven’t figured out yet, it’s also slightly longer than the current text, so streamlining is apparently not an issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time, thanks very much for the explanation and the work you put into this. I don't think a change is necessary. I think the "repetition" issue is a non-issue. The original version, as it stands, is the most accurate, even if only by a few sentences. However, if consensus chooses the changed version that you propose, then so be it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the editor proposing reorganization, I, too, want to keep the current version. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The remarks on tariffs could be generalized and moved up. However, the rest of your comment is confusing: if trade is not part of his "actual foreign policy", why is it in the Foreign Policy section at all? It's certainly inextricably tied to the America First piece. As Bob notes, the current organization, in addition to being oversectioning, doesn't fit well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time never wrote that Trade is not part of Trump's foreign policy, actual or otherwise. The reason for the subsection on Trade is because Trump's view on trade and implementation of that view was very important. In other words, it certainly is part of his foreign policy legacy. Trade is one of the issues that stand out during his presidency.

Especially, I think because of Trump's pugilistic attitude toward China regarding trade, which had a memorable economic impact. I think it is important to emphasize tariffs in a Trade subsection. It fits perfectly well, but more than that - it serves a purpose. I think Nikkimaria's argument is more about ornamentation than function or serving a purpose. Hence repeating a clause is a non-issue. Lastly, Space Time pointed out we don't know which section people will read, so this very miniscule repetition again serves a purpose. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Current text and proposed reorganization

Current text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Trade See also: Trump tariffs Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the trade deficit in July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020 as the successor to NAFTA. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.</nowiki>

Proposed text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump and Trump tariffs Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, among other imports; however, the trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and renegotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, effective July 2020) as the successor to NAFTA. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sharply increasing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. Trump sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.

I haven't had the time to compare them. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Change "to now" to "not to" in the following sentence, if it is an error, as I suspect:

Donald Trump claimed to now know who David Duke was in 2016, Feldonian (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - That sentence (and more) was removed from article 8 hours before your post here,[5] so I don't know where you saw it. Maybe you needed to refresh your page? Maybe you were looking at an old revision of the article? Maybe you looked at the edit I linked and don't know what a removal looks like? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Village Pump

started by the same editor as the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer January discussion, also without notifying editors on this page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:PEIS, resulting in a couple of edits on the main page that added 6,000 bytes (Reduce WP:PEIS and WP:PEIS improvements from WP:VPT courtesy of User:Ahecht). I haven't a clue what the alleged improvement is supposed to be or do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The PEIS reduction continues. Where do I find the WP guideline on adding #invoke:cite ...| (<ref>{{'''#invoke:cite news|'''|last= |first= |url= |title= |work=[[ ]]|date= |access-date= }}</ref>) to citations? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Right now the article is extremely long, a lot of which does not need to be there. I think it might be good to discuss which sections need to be trimmed and split off.

For example, the Presidency section is nearly half the page, and clearly does not all need to be here. There is a separate Presidency of Donald Trump article. This article should not repeat all the points there. We should try to summarise them further Soni (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Izno, Novem Linguae, Locke Cole, and ActivelyDisinterested: - Pinging everyone who discussed adjacent things in the VPT discussion Soni (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am still of the opinion that 99% of the presidency stuff should be removed in favor of a summary style section and hatnote link to the main presidency article. That alone will solve the problem. No one should be allowed to add content to that section here. They should be reverted and directed to the main presidency article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This would be great to do ...have not been able to load the page on my phone in almost a year.... simply too big and times out. This happens to me with articles that are over 15000 words and or over 900 kB of sources and or 25 plus images.... Combining all these makes it impossible load. That said on my PC everything works just fine and looks good. Moxy🍁 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  You may need a new phone with more capacity. I have no problem with any articles on my Samsung Galaxy S21 5G 128GB. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do have a better phone....but use an old one to see what will be accessible for people with older phones. The vast majority of the world has phones older then 8 years old. All those phones that Americans turn in for an upgrade get recycled and used somewhere in the world. Our goal is to make things accessible to the vast majority of people not just Americans with the newest technology..... that's why we have size limits. Moxy🍁 20:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this section is probably the lowest-hanging fruit, yes. If you look at the Template:Section lengths above, the 4 years of his presidency (out of his 78 years of life, ~5%) is 50% of the current wikitext. Izno (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Considering that he may become the 47th US president on 20 January 2025. His BLP will certainly become even longer. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the section a bit, but we should probably trim it further. I might make some more BOLD removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I prefer just going a bit more BOLD and using Template:Excerpt style excerpts sourced directly from the Presidency lede. If 99% of the article needs to be trimmed, iterative removal can only go so far. I think that's what @Valjean said above as well, but maybe they were saying something different with a "summary style". Soni (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to face the fact that Trump has had a very full and varied life, and we editors will always disagree about what the highlights are. That said, give trimming a go.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)