Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 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)

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 preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racially charged

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal, per Goszei's comment (they've already written everything). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking article size

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

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — TBD – 422,683 – 095

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

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.

---

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Support with changes It seems odd to not include his major political positions in the lead. I would move those categorisations into a separate sentence explaining his political views, rather than about 'Trumpism' itself. Too much focus on words, not on policy and stances that will bear historical weight. MB2437 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem...^Talk 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello ^(music) 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Wikipedia?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.

As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,

And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, the wikilink is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The topic is already well described in the Trumpism article, so a simple mention of it with a wikilink will suffice. If consensus ends up supporting inclusion, it should be only a single sentence, this page is long enough. Mgasparin (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1, it's exactly what I wrote (only more expanded). JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit War

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

---

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

---

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Between presidential terms (2021–2025). Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

who pinned this? [1][2] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you made this change re archiving [3]. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." 2601:483:400:1CD0:324A:DECE:5253:C8FB (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Making a section heading change

Just a reminder that the inauguration is in a couple of days and the time for taking an action discussed above is coming. It appears that there is consensus to make an edit after the inauguration that is the following section heading change,

from First post-presidency (2021–2025)

to Between presidential terms (2021–2025).

It's fine with me if anyone makes the change. I'll leave it to you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Inter-presidency? First post-presidency? Which one?

Can we start an RFC? Right now it's at the subject "Between Presidential Terms" which doesn't read right. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Use the Grover Cleveland page, as a model. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't use RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. I don't think we have attempted the latter as of yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, although I made the edit per Bob's suggestion above, Interpresidency might be better. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. 2A02:1406:10:ED6A:0:0:369E:4EDF (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. 2600:6C4A:4B7F:DBC0:81AF:2AD8:9DD7:F170 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous image is more suited for his wikipedia page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous image is more suited for his wikipedia page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Making this article fully protected

when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) thekingpachy (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. Plugshirt (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)

maybe some people might spread misinformation?

im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here thekingpachy (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. Plugshirt (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? thekingpachy (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-quote from below: In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected thekingpachy (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to supersede consensus #50

Uninvolved closure requested.[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support His sentencing today[5] has met WP:BLPCRIME requirement that a conviction has been secured for that crime, support adding and criminal in the lede sentence per consistency with other WP:CRIMINAL articles.Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • As in: "Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name Marky Mark, is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?

  —Alalch E. 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Or: "Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as Eminem (stylized as EMINƎM), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in Eminem#Legal issues. He wasn't running for president at the time . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —Alalch E. 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Alalch E. Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a WP:FALSEBALANCE as you are creating here.

    How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.

    But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other WP:NOTABLE aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.

    Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is WP:NOTABLE on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —Alalch E. 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Alalch E. So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that WP:POINT? 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    This request for comment (please read Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —Alalch E. 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Alalch E. I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.

    The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.

    I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Wikipedia is first and foremost about both.

    I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Wikipedia and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: This request for comment (please read Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? —Alalch E. 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  BLPCRIME says nothing about placement of content. It allows inclusion of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies WP:BLPCRIME. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is WP:UNDUE. — Czello ^(music) 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and WP:RECENTISM arguments make it undue. — Czello ^(music) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not first-sentence material.—Alalch E. 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  So is Mark Wahlberg. —Alalch E. 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — Czello ^(music) 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• The AP Stylebook says:

"Some use the spelling lede. At AP, we side with the Poynter Institute’s Roy Peter Clark in viewing lede as jargon-like spelling while lead reminds us to lead readers into the story."

So it's correct to spell it either way. -SusanLesch (talk)

The article is not about him it`s about trump Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks, I forgot —Alalch E. 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. lacks policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —Alalch E. 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? BootsED (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  [6] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being Silvio Berlusconi who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. IrishReader1996 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Wikipedia: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Wikipedia has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. Bdushaw (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Anonymous8206: Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Anonymous8206: obviously it also applies to Biden, not just Trump. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. Riposte97 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook WP:NOTABLE pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the WP:LEAD goes, according our rules governing it.
  FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.
  Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.
  Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.
  And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.
  However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is WP:NOTABLE is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on WP:FRINGE thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of WP:LEAD.
  That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be WP:NPA, as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a WP:SPADE a spade given the stakes and clear violation of WP:NOTABILITY in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.

  This also happens to be that great rare example of WP:AAGF. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.

  Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating WP:NOTABLE facts in a way that our rules surrounding WP:LEAD demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for WP:CENSORing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is WP:NOTABLE and what is not.

  Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are anything but biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to WP:AGF. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an WP:ANI, but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, your "many years of experience" are not spotless when it comes to your own behavior. And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!

  At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.

  As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me See False equivalence. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. not spotless when it comes to your own behavior Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from 9+1⁄2 years ago. Great detective work. I plan to move on Good call. I'm done here. Are you? I'm done if you are. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.

  And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — Czello ^(music) 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czello I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czello P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is WP:CENSORSHIP by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD and WP:NOTABILITY are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography as a first for Presidents, then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — Czello ^(music) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czello Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) you did mention to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.

  And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.

  I'm neutral on this row.

  But it does appear you are not IMO. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.

  The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — Czello ^(music) 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czello How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.

  And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.

  Wikipedia is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Wikipedia policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.

  I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). This is what's a violation of good faith.

  As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — Czello ^(music) 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Czello Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with WP:OWN language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — Czello ^(music) 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.Arbeiten8 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are talking about "We" on a global site here. This site is not meant to be America centric or an American encylopida. Worldwide leaders have been convicted of crimes and it is not in their lead sentence and this shouldn't be any different see Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @IrishReader1996 That's a bad example.

  It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.

  The notability between a little known Italian leader and the President of a nuclear superpower could not be any more difference in what is WP:NOTABLE.

  According to WP:CRIME "For perpetrators, the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." That is beyond question here. The argument of the supporters is that Donald Trump should not be an exception to that simply because of the heat of the moment. It's a valid POV. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This response is amazingly biased. " leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy." this is nothing more than opinion from you nothing factual here.

  Your point of Berlusconi being little known is also your own personal view he is one of the most notable Italian politicians post Mussolini and one of the most notable European politicians in the last number of decades due to his multiple scandals and convictions which are all documented in his article.

  On your last point " including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." this all applies to Berlusconi and other politicians worldwide who have been convicted of crimes who are not labeled criminals in their opening sentence.

  But for purposes of points and notability in an American context the article for Spiro Agnewdoes not label him a criminal in the opening sentence either. He was the first and only sitting vice president of the USA convicted of a crime. IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Berlusconi "a little known Italian leader"? Is this a joke? The fact that he wasn't American doesn't mean that he's and has been little known; the world isn't, and never will be, US-centric. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, Mandruss and others. This addition is not WP:DUE as Trump is certainly not most notable for an unconditional discharge sentencing. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? 189.179.128.219 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. 2003:CD:EF49:C700:DD80:5A19:2283:EFDA (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". Slatersteven (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Wikipedia cannot even say directly "Osama bin Laden was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to the dictionary definition, I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Wikipedia more than I hate Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see Hermann Göring, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This is a textbook example of information that has WP:DUEweight in the WP:LEAD. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.

That's how wikipedia works.

And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as WP:NOTABLE then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.

There is too much WP:EDITORIALizing going on here in this debate.2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic about IP addresses, WP:AGF, resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you the same IP as above 2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like 65.153.22.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @PackMecEng: When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear socking situation. As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible bludgeoning; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEON is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Mandruss Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:4989:2E9B:F75E:3173 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent clear evidence is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, here, and then doubled down here. That remains unacceptable in my opinion.) My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself—we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @PackMecEng Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E4AF:EA9E:F67C:C0C (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks! I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to WP:RECENTISM. — Czello ^(music) 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czello This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and WP:NOT recent, and is WP:NOT our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu No, but you are flirting with trying WP:GAMING the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.

This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember?? And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.

The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.

The only WP:SPADE is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read WP:LEAD It clearly says that in the lead, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies. There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at WP:ANI, unless someone sees fit to do it now. (To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's primarily known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — Czello ^(music) 08:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. Dream Focus 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Michael Cohen (lawyer) served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. Arbeiten8 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support On Wikipedia, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol Big Thumpus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please remember this is a BLP, and any accusations must be backed up with sources, and he can't be accused of breaking laws with out there even being an investigation by the authorities. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.

The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",

So let's look at WP:LEAD, shall we? It clearly says, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.

Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".

I want editors to note that WP:LEAD in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.

-->Is it "notable" per WP:LEAD? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.

-->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.

-->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.

And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.

For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per WP:V otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the WP:NPOV violation. EmmaRoydes (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly WP:Undue. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701 That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) Kowal2701 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment — See the lead sentence of the Wikipedia article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been advised against other stuff and whataboutism, correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: why "animal"? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Animal, noun sense 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Wikipedia article is Allen Weisselberg. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Wikipedia article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that Barack Obama's racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per WP:AGF, there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Separate - no. It came up during this RfC about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also this discussion and two brief ones (here and here) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles .) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in Jimmy Carter. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? Riposte97 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  ...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why WP:RECENT exists. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Big Thumpus: I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Wikipedia will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Venturing even further off topic, a future Wikipedia will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. TFD (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  How about the court? [7] O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

A convicted felon is by definition a criminal Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

All of which is eminently verifiable and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the simplistic arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally, completely agree with Mandruss. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". Cortador (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Wikipedia articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the WP:RECENTISM in saying he isn't notable for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? Cortador (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. Read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

See Donald Trump#Media career. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: Dimensions (Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms), Urban Dictionary (A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? Cortador (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador: I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose He's not known for being a criminal qua criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Statistics: Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Seventh time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - This fact appears to be fading as his inauguration approaches. Per WP:DUE, it just doesn't belong in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Now 8...if it`s all about who gets the last word here no problem...trump is a convicted felon and now president...it is a turning point in history...it is going to be the only thing he`s remembered for in the end Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anonymous8206: insisting will not bring users closer to your idea. Really boring. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It is time for everyone who has posted here to shut up, Nothing new is being added, and just let oterh have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's about ripe for a closure request, I think, unless the Supporters concede. I'll submit the request soon. Then we wait for probably 4–8 weeks for a closer. Discussion can continue during the wait, but I agree that little of use is being added lately and we don't need more pointless clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You get the last word as always and that`s just the it is right ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't you know? I have been anointed by God. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now asked for this to be closed, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "...enough is enough." Exactly, this RfC is a waste of time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"Criminal" in the lead sentence is a bit tough, but there is precedent to describe him as the first felon to be president in the lead paragraph. These firsts can be seen in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

2nd Term time

I believe that under the section that says assuming office where it says January 20th, 2025, should have an end date of January 20th, 2029, considering the fact that this is his second term and he will not be eligible to run in the 2028 election, if it cant say that under "assuming office" then it should say that the day he becomes President, thank you. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Or after that date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You're saying he will need two thirds of Congress. You're saying he will respect the 22nd amendment. You're saying that the end date will be in 2029. But we don't know any of that, because none of those have happened. FPTI (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Further more, the suggested content is verifiable Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If wikipedia "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on January 1, 2021 and on February 1, 2021. See Donald Trump on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017. See Barack Obama on January 1, 2009 and on February 1, 2009. And so on.

The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017.

This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place—discussion on this page governs only this article.

A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 198#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Constitutionally, his second term will expire at Noon EST on 20 January 2029. However, we aren't 100% certain if he'll serve the entire term. We assume he will, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"The kings go up and the kings go down, and who knows who shall rule?" FPTI (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New Trump-produced portrait

Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait 2601:300:4B81:9C70:B848:8708:D29D:D129 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. Jimco1945 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be noted on the page that this is his inauguration portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Were they included in Wikipedia articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine Are Jay Morrison (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo is the current profile picture for the official POTUS account, signifying it as an official photo Btomblinson (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. His Twitter does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at the Commons village pump for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus 1 references temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required. See this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on "the author is going to PD [it]" at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See Commons:Licensing Pave Paws (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Made an account just to change this. Yes! Evaburden (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Evaburden, it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - Until Library of Congress has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/

207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. Here is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke emanating from the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. BarntToust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Wikipedia. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings (day or night). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but aside from the copyright issues of this image, I think that there are some warranted WP:NPOV concerns here with the lighting/post-production and expression (which I think is aimed at conveying something), as outlined by Mandruss. We often use officially produced portraits of cabinet members and members of Congress because they are current, of high quality, and free use as works of the U.S. Government (usually confirmed by their metadata). I would posit that these are routine images taken without much thought given for the pose, composition, lighting, etc. aside from what a typical portrait photographer would consider. However, I am not sure the same can be said for this image. Connormah (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this train of thought. Even if the copyright concerns are resolved (such as the photographer themselves releasing into public domain), I would only support this image if there is no other free image that even comes close to being as neutral. I broadly agree with the idea that we should try to update the image to one that reflects his current (approximately 8 years older) appearance, if/when a free option is available that otherwise works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. Well said. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is a portrait produced under directive by Trump and co., then I think that if it looks devious, that's the choice of Trump, and we use the official portrait anyhow. Ultimately, if what ends up being the official portrait is something comparable to this & that is the image millions see as they look at Wikipedia, so be it. That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.

Let's not ignore our common sense when we look through this article and we see that a good chunk of it is damning info about crime, uprising, totalitarianism, and fascism. Perhaps a portrait of this caliber would be poetic in a way, representing the content within? BarntToust 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it. Absolutely not. Trump's wishes are completely irrelevant here. That applies as much to the infobox portrait as to any other content in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying we make Trump's Infobox the way he wants because we want to appease him, I'm saying that we go along with the portrait per policy, and that if it looks horrible, by all means it will be reflective of the horrible things that he has done that are present in the article. BarntToust 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Like, even if it's a shitty portrait, it would be due as it would represent the contents of the article therein. Point is, a shitshow should be represented thusly if that's what Trump is gonna send to the Library of Congress. BarntToust 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's try this: Why are we spending so much time discussing a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to become a reality? Check out the Commons deletion request; it's almost certain to pass and the image will be deleted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust, as I indicated above, it is not a WP policy to use official images, and we are not obligated to do so if we feel they might violate our NPOV policy. Usually that is not a consideration, but like many things, that could be a point of discussion here. Connormah (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ has those exact portraits uploaded now. Public domain licenses thus attached. My point still stands: Trump is known for doing not-good things, the portrait happening to reflect that not-good-ness is reflective of the article, which also does not violate NPOV. BarntToust 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In short, having a devious-looking portrait—for a felon who has been compared to Hitler, made racist and sexist remarks, makes falsehoods like rabbits make babies, stole and mishandled official documents, so on and so forth—is not a problem? BarntToust 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

this is about the portrait and not the politics. Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. BarntToust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters are cute. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on how Trump's new official photo looks, I would be in favour of just keeping his photograph as-is. The current one looks really good. Mgasparin (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but it will be 12 years old by the time he leaves office. People don't like such old photos in infoboxen. A lot think it's too old now. It's unlikely a new official White House portrait will be unacceptably poor in quality; those guys know what they're doing. Anyway, we're hoping but don't know there will be another official portrait after he takes office. Trump may order this "inauguration" portrait to be the one used on the White House page, and it may be within his presidential powers to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate edit requests/discussions

I'd like to start a discussion here on duplicate discussions. At this point, they are going to keep coming in, likely multiple per day. Does anyone disagree that, after leaving them up for a reasonable amount of time for the user to see a response (I suggest 12 hours), they can simply be removed from the talk page so they don't get archived and clog up the archive?

Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. BarntToust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? anikom15 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).

However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.

So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg -- JFHutson (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The closer said this is freely licensed now (20 January). What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Wikipedia, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that User:Bedivere. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? BarntToust 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to prove that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See the precautionary principle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.

Lo, the pot calls the kettle black. BarntToust 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See here. The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pantarch: You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion was reached on Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. Pantarch (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. Pantarch (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons deletion request closed as keep

[8] Me, I'd call that a supervote by the closer. And the closure rationale exists nowhere but in the page history? But what do I know. As I said above, Wikipedia copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a supervote, it's now at their noticboard for user/admin problems as a blatant supervote and license laundering. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).

We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. anikom15 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e., , should be inserted on the remaining ones. Pantarch (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, @Pantarch:. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't violate the BRD restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:

"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" Pantarch (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"America's Hitler" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect America's Hitler has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16 § America's Hitler until a consensus is reached. BarntToust 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Challenge consensus item 44

I would like to challenge consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 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)

I do not believe that Trump and Kim Jong-Un having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the fox not to be sneaky, and the fox then gets sly with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per MOS:LEAD. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. BarntToust 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea have not conducted a nuclear test since. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. MB2437 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"He became a millionaire at age 8"

Mandruss: You are right. Before people started "improving" what used to be the "Personal life" section (early life and education, family, health, and wealth) and messing with the cites, we had the correct information AND the actual sources for the information, two New York Times articles. Buettner/Craig p.30/31 mentions the trusts Fred T set up for his children by putting apartment complexes in their names and paying them rent, but it's not the source for "millionaire by age 8" (or for "became a millionaire at age 8":). NYT: By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year. I've given up trying to correct the cites or anything else in that section.

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for SusanLesch. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. When you're chewing on life's gristle ... Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. "puhleaze" is undue:). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How is this not puffery? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

? Does it resemble anything at MOS:PUFFERY? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Well do we attribute the claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also wp:undue can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, fight the power! PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, and maybe not. But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Large subsections in the First Presidency section

As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Wikipedia as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Wikipedia, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.

As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,

from "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020.[375] The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020.[376] Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar,[377] focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[378] In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over.[379] On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic".[380]"

to "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration,[377] focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[378]".

Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're correct. We have a good opportunity to carry such an edit off, too. I'd support you if you undertook to make such trims. Riposte97 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreement with Riposte97 and Bob K31416. The section of COVID under the first presidency has 7 sections, and is the summary given above by Bob K31416 intended for the entire COVID section, or, for one of those subsections. Your summary is a good one and let us know which subsections of the COVID section it covers. Possibly you have a similar summary in mind for the Foreign Affairs section as well which you could share with us. The summary so far look pretty good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My example was just for the first paragraph, as I mentioned, perhaps somewhat unclearly? I basically kept one sentence. The idea was to reduce the paragraph to a summary or main point without changing the tone. I think any attempts that might change the tone would jeopardize the success of reduction, which may be difficult to get agreement on in any case. It might be useful to get the thoughts from two of the most active editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I'm terrible at this kind of thing, which is why I tend to avoid it. All I know is that the article has needed dramatic reduction for many years. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked some more at the Covid section with an eye to similar reductions like the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I didn't find the rest of the Covid section amenable to that approach, at least for me. Maybe it would take the main people or person responsible for the Covid section to make an appropriate reduction. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely the section will gradually be reduced in size, as more info is added into the Second Presidency section. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Building on the idea stated above from Bob K31416, I've added a short summary for each of the subsections in the COVID section and combined them together which now looks like:

"Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration,[377] focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.[378] Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29. Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid. In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized anti-lockdown protests against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic; Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter, although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening. Trump repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored, such as approving unproven treatments By July 2020, Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had become a major issue in the presidential election. "

Possibly editors can mention if this looks like a fair summary to replace the current very long COVID section in the article which contains seven (7) subsections with this trimmed version. The trimmed version would then add all of the Further information links for all of the main articles on Wikipedia which already exist. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're on the track of something good. My first thought is to eliminate the last sentence because it is about Biden. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed and dropping the last sentence. Pinging Riposte97 and Bob K31416 to see if this looks like a good version to use to trim the current long COVID section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a huge improvement. Hopefully the whole article can proceed this way! Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you need more editors participating. The relative lack of interest, positive and negative, for this large change does not bode well. All I can say is that I wouldn't oppose your edit. For one thing, it wouldn't be set in stone and editors could modify it once it is in the article. A Bold-Revert-Discuss might get more editors to discuss it. Good luck, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed something else in the sentence that begins, "Prior to the pandemic...". It probably went with other material that was about the pandemic. Alone it isn't about the pandemic. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I started looking at how you got these sentences and it appears that you tried to do what I did with the example of the first paragraph. Good try. Regarding the sentence starting with "Prior..." that I mentioned above, I found that it was the sentence you selected from the subsection World Health Organization. Here it is underlined and enlarged in context,

Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid.[400] His administration's proposed 2021 federal budget, released in February, proposed reducing WHO funding by more than half.[400] In May and April, he accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging" COVID-19, alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the pandemic's origins,[400][401][402] and announced that he was withdrawing funding for the organization.[400] These were seen as attempts to distract from his mishandling of the pandemic.[400][403][404] In July 2020, he announced the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, effective July 2021.[401][402] The decision was widely condemned by health and government officials as "short-sighted", "senseless", and "dangerous".[401][402]

I think that to find a reduction of this that has a better chance for being accepted, we need to call on one of the main and currently active contributors to the article [9] like Space4Time3Continuum2x and see what they think about reducing this subsection and if they have any suggestions of how to do it. With their participation, it would have a much better chance of being accepted. Otherwise it would take a much bigger participation for a reduction to have a chance. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are useful comments for this from Bob K31416. Regarding the response by the top editors you mention, then Mandruss has already responded above and its completely up to the other top editors if they would like to comment while consensus is being established. If there is consensus between 3 or more editors without contest, then the edit can normally move forward into the main article. I'm presently for supporting the edit as you have stated in your research above, and I'll join in with Riposte97 and Bob K31416 if either one of them is ready to bring this edit into the article. I'm also ready to add my trimmed version of the Foreign policy section under First Presidency here as well for discussion on Talk. It was mentioned at the start of this thread in order for both trimmed subsection versions (COVID and Foreign policy) to go together into the article at the same time, or if its preferred to do them one subsection at a time. Ready to support anyone who wishes to bring this trimmed version of the COVID subsection in the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential addition to the first paragraph of the lead

The page Second presidency of Donald Trump includes the following statement: Upon taking office, he will become the second president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive terms after Grover Cleveland in 1893, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after having been impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office. These are a lot of historical firsts.

Wikipedia pages on other presidents often mention historically significant information in the first paragraph of the lead, see for instance: Barack Obama and the mention that "he was the first African-American president in U.S. history"; Jimmy Carter's "He was the longest-lived president in U.S. history and the first to reach the age of 100"; Richard Nixon's "he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal"; John F. Kennedy's "He was the youngest person elected president at 43 years"; Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "He is the longest-serving U.S. president, and the only one to have served more than two terms"; Grover Cleveland's "He was one of only two presidents to serve non-consecutive terms"; among others.

With this in mind, it seems fitting that information on Trump being the second president to serve non-consecutive terms, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after being impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office, all fall within historical notability and many presidential firsts that should be mentioned in the first paragraph per precedent on other pages. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Trump is the richest U.S. president ever.[10] Bob K31416 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That would violate consensus #38. BootsED (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Bear in mind that anything added to the lead has to be in the body first, with citation. And the sourcing must be direct; no deduction may be required to get from the cited source to the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The former US president has accomplished a lot of firsts. We shouldn't flood the intro with all of'em. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of that sentence is going to be moot in less than 24 hours. Second non-consecutive term and Grover Cleveland: last I heard "second" isn't the same as "first", so this is more ole Grover's claim to fame. I think it's better to mention the impeachments and acquittals the way the lead does now. Oldest: not leadworthy, I don't think we even mention it in the body. First convicted felon: a label to be avoided per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. I do think we should move the sentence about the felony conviction into the first paragraph but that is a separate discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What about "Trump has been an influential and polarizing figure in modern American politics." It's definitely supported by sources and the article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x @GoodDay @Mandruss @Bob K31416 @BootsED We need to figure this out soon, its going to look so weird if the lead paragraph is only one sentence Personisinsterest (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is not about that. See Talk:Donald_Trump#Changing_first_paragraph_after_the_inauguration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"convicted fellon" should be specific or it would go against MOS:CRIMINAL, I also doubt that it carries enough weight. I agree with OP that something in the first paragraph is needed. For me the choice is straight forward, looking at sources what characterize Trump is the aggressive stance toward the many economical issues, means trade war, mass deportations, etc. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Net worth and consensus 5

Current consensus item 5: Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates.

We currently source net worth to this page which is part of said Forbes list of billionaires. But that page identifies the number as "Real Time Net Worth", which is inconsistent with consensus 5 (real time=live). I seem to recall that the Forbes billionaires list used to provide a separate number that was not real-time, but I don't see that now. What's going on? Do we need to change the article? Do we need to supersede #5 with a new methodology, such as updating the article from the real-time number on the first day of each month or each year? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the "matching ranking" was removed from the article at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears Forbes now has two billionaires lists: one real-time and one annual. A Google search for forbes annual billionaires list yields Forbes Richest World's Billionaires List 2024, which lists Trump at $2.3B and #1438 in the world. Seems like that should be our methodology: update the article each time the new annual list comes out. This methodology would reduce net worth from real-time $6.3B to annual $2.3B; I can't explain the huge difference except that maybe ~10 months have passed since the 2024 list came out. The 2025 list might list him much higher, I don't know. Can't say I understand anything about Forbes's methodologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I was unaware of consensus item #5. Forbes, WP:FORBES, may not be the authority we'd like to have but they're all we've got. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough for me: "Forbes also publishes various 'top' lists which can be referenced in articles." Ok, barring objections, I'll change the article to conform with #5 in a day or two, using the 2024 list. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Planned update:

In 2024, Forbes estimated Trump's net worth at $2.3 billion and ranked him the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world.

...which will conflict with the preceding sentence:

According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 comprised approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in Trump Media & Technology Group—today his primary asset.

There's already a conflict, but it's not so large. Maybe the $5.6B sum is assets only and the $2.3B is assets minus liabilities? There's a paywall in my way for the $5.6B source. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Did you write the $5.6B sentence? If so, can you answer this? Is "wealth" a synonym for "assets"? I wasn't aware of that. If not, should it be changed to "assets" for clarity? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not for me to say.

Our The World's Billionaires list was published in April 2024. The breakdown I cited was November 2024. Truth Social's value fluctuates that wildly. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Another "improvement" I missed — March 2024 feels like B.C. now (see "Net worth update" link, below). I just reverted to the consensus 5 version. The ranking on the annual billionaires' list used to be in the upper left corner of the Forbes webpage (see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_167#Net_worth_update) but the Wayback machine’s toolbar is superimposed on that part of the archived pages. Now you do have to scroll down to "Forbes Lists" to see the annual ranking. The problem was the link — the original link to the "Full profile" works as before. The link has to specify the list; there are others, such as the Forbes 400. The list is published in April, AFAIK. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding the Net worth update discussion and Moratorium on constantly updating Forbes' ranking. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I like my "Planned update" better (both its text and its citation), but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Also, do you see an apparent conflict between those two sentences? If you're a reader, does that raise an eyebrow? If so, how would you resolve it? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This was the Wealth section before the election. The section could have used some trimming and updating but not the wholesale deletion of most of the contents. Gone is information that I don't think is "overdetail" for the successful business tycoon persona that he was/is projecting (tax returns showing losses, tax fraud, etc.). After the trim most of the section was about Forbes, from "John Barron" to Trump’s billionaire listing on November 4 and on December 16, 2024. When I reverted the last sentence to consensus 5 adherence, I didn't look at the second to last sentence which was also added here, together with the one that violated consensus 5. IMO, it also falls under #5. It's merely a wordier description of Trump's ranking on the billionaires' list on the day before the 2024 election. This sentence should be removed.

No objection to the wording of the last sentence you proposed in your planned update, above. Don't know about the citation. The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button (exactly what you argued against in last year's discussion, methinks). The current url takes the reader directly to Trump's full profile but that page doesn't name the editors. Either way we'd have to update the cite when the new list is published (year and access date in the current form, and, if necessary, the names of the editors in your proposed cite). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button - No, they need only enter "donald trump" in the search box, which my citation explains to them. Bingo, it shows both ranking and net worth on the resulting line. No need to go any further for verification. And this way they would see only the annual, not both annual and real-time.

Don't hold me to anything I said last year, or even last week. My thinking evolves.

No objection to removing anything else that you see fit to remove. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed the second to last sentence. (Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Yeah, I know. I could change that. If another Trump became a billionaire, we could change it back. Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Just seems simpler and more straightforward, providing the required verification and not confusing matters by putting other information in front of them. A citation is for article content verification only, not "further reading" or "more information". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks fine. Naturally more can be said, but I think the important thing is that the range of his net worth is nailed down. The second sentence removed might be changed to percents but I am happy with what we have.

Extended content
According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was, very roughly, 62 percent stock in Trump Media & Technology Group, 20 percent real estate, and 18 percent golf clubs and resorts. (Truth Media's stock price is volatile.)

Sources

Updating of Trump & Vance, upon assumption of offices

I realize this page is on enough editors' watchlists, to prevent or revert those who might update the page prematurely, before Noon EST on 20 January 2025. But, perhaps many of you may consider adding JD Vance to your watchlists, to prevent the same thing. PS - I'm presuming that Joe Biden & Kamala Harris are already on many watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't have too many watchers, but see JD Vance page information. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a section on his crypto coin?

Is there a section on his crypto coin? Mercer17 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

in my opinion its not of enough note to be mentioned as of now . Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll add $TRUMP (really, "Strump"?) to the bullet list in The Trump Organization#Other ventures and investments. (Amazing Photoshop job on the website selling the coin, makes Trump at least 40 years younger and 50+ pounds lighter. Melania's coin is called $MELANIA. Smelania – maybe it's pronounced differently in Slowenian. I know — off-topic.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Objectivity and Accuracy

The piece in general lacks objectivity and is characterized by a strong, anti-Trump thread throughout in the form of numerous statements that are opinionated in nature but presented as fact or that are plainly inaccurate, in many cases because it seems facts have come to light since some grossly biased statement was written. Examples follow.

Excerpted example of biased characterization from the piece: “After a series of business bankruptcies in the 1990s, he launched several side ventures.”

Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical; Trump, like most entrepreneurs, undertake a collection of business ventures during his rise to success

Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece: “His immigration policy included a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees and expanding the U.S.–Mexico border wall; he also briefly implemented a family separation policy. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations, signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actof 2017, initiated a trade war with China in 2018, and withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Unwithout progress on denuclearization.”

Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. It can be argued, and many do, that Trump’s tactics toward N. Korea and China reduced those Nations’ aggressive posture, only to see it strengthen again under the lay-down policies of the Biden administration. The immigration policy didn’t “target Muslims,” but rather targeted travelers from nations that have strong culturally-based animus toward the US as demonstrated toward recent and previous acts of terrorism toward America, strong public demonstrations by the populace inciting terrorism toward America, and research, intelligence, and survey information documenting a large number of active terrorists and people that support terrorism toward America. The family separation policy referenced is simply a by-product of detaining adult aliens that have illegally emigrate with minor family members among their group. The minor family members are not arrested along with their adult parents/guardians, but are placed in care while the adults are incarcerated. This is the same dynamic that occurs when US citizens are arrested while caring for minor dependents.

Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece: “In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he downplayed its severity, contradicted guidance from international public health bodies, and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus. He lost the 2020 presidential election but did not concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, including through his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. He was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and in 2021for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”

Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. Much of the “guidance from international public health bodies” has been demonstrated to be inaccurate and contrived through unethical parading undocumented assertions for things such as the efficacy of masks, the progenitor source of the COVID19 virus as a “wet market” rather than the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan that received funds from the United States’ virology research apparatus headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been demonstrated as knowingly fabricating and misstating numerous assertions about this “guidance.” The “scholars and historians” reference is not cited and certainly refers to a collection of marxist, intellectually dishonest sophists, much like the 51 national security officials who called the Hunter Biden laptop and the information contained therein a sophisticated Russia disinformation campaign in signed, publicly released statement. Dale Albert (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Several studies have pointed to the political leanings of Wikipedia's editor base. For instance, research by Greenstein and Zhu analyzed political bias in Wikipedia articles and found an early tendency towards a liberal bias, which they suggested might be linked to the political orientations of the editors. These studies used methods like analyzing word choice in articles related to U.S. politics to infer political slant. There's evidence suggesting that conservative editors might face more sanctions or blocks compared to liberal editors. This was highlighted in analyses pointing towards institutional favoritism toward left-of-center viewpoints in Wikipedia's arbitration and enforcement processes. The demographic of Wikipedia editors (predominantly male, from developed countries, often with liberal views) can influence how topics are covered or which topics are deemed worthy of coverage. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and Wikipedia's own co-founder, Larry Sanger, view Wikipedia as politically biased. Wikipedia has policies aimed at neutrality (NPOV - Neutral Point of View), and there's a significant effort by some in the community to reduce bias through collaborative editing, which can mitigate individual editor biases over time. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) The opening post is fine in my book (it could suggest specific improvements in addition to speaking more generally). Your comment is not directly related to improvement of this article, is too meta for this page, and qualifies as WP:NOTFORUM vio. I suggest WP:VPM. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Citing our Manual of Style: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. You’re quoting portions of the lead and then state your opinion on them. You have a right to your opinion, but Wikipedia content is based on reliably sourced material. Please, read the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there. If you believe material and/or sources to be false or misrepresented, present the reliable sources that support your view. Please, also look at the sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable. You can find the list in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dale Albert: you're at least partly right. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Dale Albert's conclusions on this matter. While the statement "Wikipedia content is based on reliably sourced material" may be true in a technical sense, it fails to address the deeper issue of selective sourcing and framing within this article. Even if the claims are based on reliable sources, they appear to have been deliberately cherrypicked to cast Trump in a negative light. For instance, including in the lead the statement, "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history," may be factually accurate, but it raises serious questions about relevance and balance. Is this truly the most critical information to feature in a summary of Trump? What about scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents?

Furthermore, this retrospective assessment feels increasingly irrelevant and outdated given that Trump has now returned to office. His presidency once again becomes active today, meaning any historical ranking from his prior term is incomplete and potentially misleading. Instead of presenting a balanced and current overview, the article seems to prioritize narratives that reinforce a one-sided perspective. This undermines Wikipedia's goal of neutrality and fairness, especially on such a polarizing subject. For a lead summary, relevance, balance, and up-to-date context are crucial, and this article falls short on all counts. TimeToFixThis (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate in this article's development like anyone else. Otherwise, I would be interested to know what remedy you suggest. If some editors here are unable to check their biases at the door, your comment is not going to make them find Jesus and repent, and that means you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM as much as the editor collapsed above. We follow Wikipedia policy here; if that's not sufficient, the flaw is with the policy, not the editors. You can discuss policy at WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Re your comment "you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM" — Could you explain that using excerpts from WP:NOTFORUM? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion not directly related to improvement of this article violates at least the spirit of NOTFORUM. This is a widely accepted principle. General blue-sky about bias cannot be directly related to improvement of the article—as I said, it can't have any effect on the article's content. The way to affect the article's content is to participate in the process, not to discuss bias. This also violates the spirit of consensus 61, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's incredibly obvious that there is no real attempt at neutrality, especially on this page. To act as if only a few editors have a teeny bias against Trump is disingenuous when studies have proven time and time again that Wikipedia has a major left-wing bias, at least in the United States. It's also disingenuous to act as if by citing sources like the New York Times that Wikipedia is being unbiased when the Times and most other "reliable" sources have demonstrated clear bias for years. Twinbros04 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't do it myself, but I would support closure of this thread if this kind of commenting continues. The very fact that it applies to far more than this article is a clear clue that it has no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but that's a pretty disingenuous idea. It's objectively true that this article, like just about every article on politics, seriously fails to be neutral. Deleting a thread in the talk page just because you don't like it basically proves this point. Ozone742 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If my argument was that I don't like it, you would have a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And you just subjectively proved Mandruss's point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources: that's a discussion to be held at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, please go the village pump if you want discuss the policies of Wikipedia, because this problem is bigger than just this one article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So present the majority of reliable sources that contradict our "selective sourcing and framing", e.g. scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Academic consensus

We don't need or have to do that ourselves. The sentence is badly referenced to begin with. See the quote to the right. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you need and have to. This isn't an article about science. Where are we saying that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view? We're citing reputable C-SPAN and Siena College surveys of historians and scholars. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna soften my position slightly. I've long been aware that I have one position (we're okay) directed outward to people not actively working on this article (usually but not always non-editors), and a different one (we're not okay) directed inward. It's probably not a good thing to have both. I think "editorial judgment" is allowed to play too great a role in consensus—here and I assume at many, many other articles. That leaves articles vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled editor biases. That said, this is not the place to discuss that problem, again because it's far larger than this article. This is not a proper use of any article talk page, and that's not a principle we invented. It should be discussed at WP:VPP, and that's the sort of thing I avoid in my semi-retirement; I find it too stressful.

If someone wishes to respond to this comment, they should do it at my user talk page. Hell, I'd be happy to host a whole big discussion about these meta issues, but participants should bear in mind that nothing will be changed on my UTP. For any chance of that, use VPP instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time convincing a lot of these editors to go there. It appears a lot of them simply think this issue applies to Trump's main article and other Trump-related articles and only those pages and not an issue that could apply to every WP article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. If editors continue to abuse this article talk page, I am confident that this thread will be closed. And it needn't be done by me, I have no doubt that a number of other frequenters of this page see eye-to-eye with me on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

travel ban formulation on lead, v2

This has already been discussed on talk page, Archive 183, still it is routinely brought back to a formulation that excludes the word "refugee" from it. The word carries important meaning of the desired effect of Trump actions, it is well developed in the body and is more precise that just vaguely refering to some Muslims countries, since other Muslim countries that had partnership with the US were not included in the ban. It is a good formulation firstly made by @Goszei, if I remember correctly. Since BRD is in place it should be discussed on talk first if editors wants to keep it after a reversion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New Short Description

Because Trump just got inaugurated the 47th US President i think we should update his short description which still says that he is the president-elect.

as a result we should change it from : President-elect and 45th president of the united states.

to : 45 & 47th President of the United States.

or use the alt version : President of the United States. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not just remove President-elect ? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

because it would still say that he is the 45th US President but that was in 2017-2021 and now he is the 47th president so thats why we should add 47th to it as well. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does it still say, "president-elect" in the short description, it had been removed around 12pm. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should stay as "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)", as that is how it is written for the Grover Cleveland article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It also says "President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present)" on the article for Vladimir Putin, another politician with multiple non consecutive terms. I agree with User:GoldenBootWizard276. - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree but it isn't the same for Russia, as they don't number presidents the same way. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you search Donald Trump on the wikipedia browser it says that he is the president-elect.
MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Must just take some time to update. It definitely says "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)" in the source code. If you want, you can try purging the cache to see if it changes. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

i can't edit it because i'm not an Wikipedia administrator. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

They mean the cache your end. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Original heading: "Updating consensus #50, lead sentence" ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Current wording:

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.

I propose to update it to read

The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who serves as the 47th president of the United States.

Present tense makes clarifications such as "current" and "since 2025" redundant. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The "47th..." GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What GoodDay said.

Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's getting worst. Somebody keeps trying to link "45th president" to Second presidency of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't fret. See this, second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What about "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta have "47th" & "45th" in there, to match with his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary because, unlike his predecessors, he's numbered twice, which is an inconvenience when it comes to word play.

But if we're going that route then maybe something like "is the 47th president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) We don't need words like "current" and "previous", and I think we can leave the start date to the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - this version. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Or (sorry):

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.

I can go either way, but sentence 2 currently says Republican Party. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss surely to align with other politicians' articles, it should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025 and previously served as the 45th president from 2017–2021. Utter Donkey (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Not all consistency is good consistency. Don't get caught in the consistency trap. Ask not whether something is consistent, but whether it is good. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the point here is that its weird his first term is worded like it was a previous office. It was the same office, just nonconsecutive terms, kind of like how Vladimir Putin's article is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is zero risk of misleading readers, it's not a significant problem. So explain to me what a reader might be misled to take from my text. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll rollback my suggestion now that you mention that. There isn't really a risk that your text will be misleading. What I was just saying was that splitting the lead and making it so his first term isn't mentioned until the second sentence is odd because it was the same office he's holding now. Splitting the sentences makes it seem like his first term was some different office he held prior to the presidency.

But I guess you're mostly right. We shouldn't idiot proof everything. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss I don't see any reason for it to be different though. The word 'previously' could be dropped I suppose. Why are we making Trump's article different from pretty much every single other politician and world leader who currently holds a certain post? Utter Donkey (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Responded at your UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021

B: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

C: leave it as is

Note: Saying since 2025 makes sense since that was when he became president. We can't necessarily say until 2029, not crystal ball here. Also, saying "serving as current 47th president" is improper due to the next successor after Trump being 48th president. Cwater1 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've lost count of the different proposals, and the discussion is just 8 hours old. Many more proposals are sure to come, since everybody has a better idea and nobody is capable of settling for anything less than their personal concept of perfection (perfect is the enemy of good). Any suggestions for a methodology that might get us to a consensus sometime before July? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 Btomblinson (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As of this comment, one editor out of seven has expressed support for a proposal that was not theirs. Yes, that includes me, I didn't say I'm any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sentences 1 and 2 proposals

• Proposals containing "current president of the United States": D, E, F, G
• Proposals containing "previously served as the 45th": D, E, F, G
• Proposals containing "[h]e served as the 45th": A, B, C
• Proposals containing "A member of the Republican Party": B, C, D, E, F, G
• Proposals containing "is the 47th": A, B, G
• Proposals containing "has been serving as 47th": D
• Proposals containing "serves as 47th": E
• Proposals containing "has been the 47th": C, F
• Proposals containing "since 2025": C, D, E, F

A:

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

B:

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.

C:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

D:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

E:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

F:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

G:

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

Sentences 1 and 2 survey

• B then A. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• B then A. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• G. btomblinson (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• A or B. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being WP:POINTy to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• B then A. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Concerning his being the 47th prez & previously the 45th prez. I'm assuming we're using the infobox of Grover Cleveland, as how to handle this? GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it and apparently got reverted seconds later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

PS - I do 'kinda' understand though the potential false appearance of having 'incumbent' under 45th. That this would work better, after his second term ends. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland is long dead and buried and his two presidencies are very much in the distant past. We have a live and living sitting president who was also president in the more recent past. I fixed the infobox to separate the two terms:

Infobox A - separating the two terms
Donald Trump Official White House presidential portrait. Official portrait, 2017 47th President of the United States Incumbent Assumed office January 20, 2025 Vice President JD Vance Preceded by Joe Biden 45th President of the United States In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021 Vice President Mike Pence Preceded by Barack Obama Succeeded by Joe Biden

and then got reverted by Admiral Farmer with the edit summary "Since this is the same office, I combinded it into one square. much like the one on Grover Cleveland’s page".

Infobox B in the style of Grover Cleveland
Donald Trump 2017 Official White House presidential portrait. Official portrait, 2025 45th and 47th President of the United States Incumbent Assumed office January 20, 2025 Vice President JD Vance Preceded by Joe Biden In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021 Vice President Mike Pence Preceded by Barack Obama Succeeded by Joe Biden

It's the same title but 45 is an office Trump held from 2017 to 2021, and 47 is an office he is holding now. Please, self-revert, or maybe someone else who agrees with my reasoning could revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In the split version, the office shouldn't be lower-cased. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should be, per MOS:JOBTITLE. 45th is a modifier. 47th is, too, but the capitalized "P" of "President of the United States" is baked into the template — it links to the Wikipedia article. We could change it to the grammatically correct lower-case p, I assume, but that would lead to a permanent back-and-forth. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it should be lower-cased per JOBTITLE. But this is one place where I think cross-article consistency is a worthwhile thing, and nobody has found the energy to raise this at Village Pump. I find it easier to stomach if I tell myself that heading is in title case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, offices are upper-cased in infoboxes regardless of modifiers. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I.e., title case. What I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they're only upper-cased because they link to a Wikipedia article. But meh, I can live with an upper-case "P". Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Merits? You mean splitting idea? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we often lower-case the first letter of a link to an article. The first character is case-insensitive. See the first sentence of this article, for an example. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Other than what I said in my first comment? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Merits, two editors asking — the problem must be me. Too obtuse? Which do you prefer, Infobox A with one box for each term or Infobox B? And, PLEASE, disregard the portrait, it changes every two minutes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I presume with 'version B', you meant to include the office? GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I just fixed it — don't know what happened there, I just copied it from the main space. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I see two differences between A and B:

• A has two heading lines. B has one heading line.
• For me, and I'm not universal, A's headings fit on one line. B's heading wraps. Big deal.

I don't think one is easier to read or understand than the other. So it's practically a toss-up, a flip of a coin. If I have to !vote, I'll !vote for the one with one heading line (B). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 22:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It didn't take me long to change my mind. B says "45th and 47th", then shows 47th and 45th. Therefore A is a little easier to understand, and I hereby change my !vote to A. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly not really? 45 comes before 47, and the 2017-21 term of office clearly came before 2025-present. Rather self explanatory. We can add a note if need be to clarify. But splitting would really make this article inconsistent with all others as all other infoboxes of leaders with multiple terms still use one box. Example: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Tusk.

Now the latter two examples aren't counting two separate terms as we have here, but splitting the boxes instead of using a note to clarify would be more inconsistent with the format other articles use for similar situations. Unless there's an example I missed where they do split the boxes for an incumbent with a previous term Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate boxes. anikom15 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Best we stick with option B, though I do understand why some might prefer 'A'. Thing is, an RFC would likely be the only chance for 'A' to be adopted & I doubt that would be much of a chance. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Option B other incumbent world leaders who have served previous terms also use just one box. 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS which would seem the case if it were two different boxes. Also this concern seems to be splitting hairs as most readers can probably understand 45th is for the 2017-21 term and 47 for 2025-present fairly easily. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I posit that 90% could figure it out if they studied it for half a minute (assume they have never seen an officeholder's infobox before). Why make them study it for half a minute? And then there's the 8% who would take considerably longer, and the 2% who would never figure it out.
• other incumbent world leaders I don't care. Other stuff exists. 99% of readers will never notice such a "discrepancy", and it's highly unlikely to present an actual problem for the remaining 1%.
• 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS is your one decent point, and I'll think on it. It might even change my !vote (back). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Question Is there agreement that after Trump's term ends the same format as Grover Cleveland's article should be used? Regardless of what you think it should be now with him as incumbent - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

May we save that for January 2029? If I agreed now, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same way then. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Option B per discussion. Lesser of two weevils. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox Officeholder applies to presidents of the United States as there is no special template for them. The template specifies the parameters president, order, office, term start, term end, predecessor, and successor for the first office. It specifies the parameters president2, order2, office2, term start2, term end2, predecessor2, and successor2 for the second office (up to 16 offices). It does not provide parameters for combining two terms of office, i.e., the format used at Grover Cleveland is wrong. But Cleveland's two terms are both over, so who cares; I’m not going to start editing there. In Trump's case we should use the parameters as intended. The usage instructions of the template say that The parameter The incumbent is the 47th President of the United States, not the 45th and 47th. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss: @GoodDay: @Bokmanrocks01:: Option B does not comply with the template's usage instructions (and neither does Grover Cleveland, for that matter). This is what I should have lead with if I had looked up the template yesterday. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Does it specifically address nonconsecutive terms, or are you reading something into it? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No and no. The logic of the parameters (e.g., order, order2, order3 ... order16) seems self-explanatory to me, as does the infobox ({{{order}}},{{{term start}}}–{{{term end}}},{{{:president}}} ...; {{{order2}}},{{{term start2}}}–{{{term end2}}},{{{president2}}} ...). And the page intended to aid users in the application of Infobox officeholder has an example for someone who held the office of Ambassador of the United States twice (Whitelaw Reid). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Different ambassadorships, different offices. Not equivalent. You've lost me with the rest. All I infer from that is that it's possible to do A (we knew that), but nothing to imply that we should do A. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Same office (Ambassador of the United States), different country:

• | ambassador_from=United States | country=France
• | ambassador_from2=United States | country2=the United Kingdom

Same office (President of the United States), different status (incumbent and former):

• | order=47th | office= President of the United States | term_start=January 20, 2025 | term–end=[blank] -> gives 47th President of the United States + Incumbent + Assumed office + January 20, 2025
• | order2=45th President of the United States | term_start2=January 20, 2017 | term–end2=January 20, 2021 -> gives 45th President of the United States + In office + January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021

Citing an [official website of the United States government]: The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump. Seems logical to me. Oh well, good thing I reconsidered going into teaching. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Still seems like that is one way order can be used but not necessarily how it should be. Still haven't seen any other articles that separate different terms of one office into different sections in the infobox. Again, we can just add a note somewhere if we are concerned about the order combined into one section causing confusion Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See my response to Mandruss. I don't know how to explain myself any better. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Website

Should whitehouse.gov now be added to the infobox? anikom15 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely, especially considering that it is "Trump-themed" now Nurken (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Portrait

The 2025 portrait of Donald Trump is actually licensed under the CC BY 3.0 US license, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ – "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The same applies to the portrait of JD Vance. Xoontor (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should change it to those soon AsaQuathern (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No. That is license laundering. The White House did not take the photograph. They do not own the copyright. It does not matter what someone other than the copyright holder says about the copyright status. Normally we would be able to trust the White House, but Trump did the same thing (stole an image) in 2017 when he took office. There is no reason to believe that the White House owns the copyright to this image, and thus they have no authority to release such copyright. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is original research and violates Wikipedia:No original research policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, and was kept after a deletion request. We shouldn't relitigate that here, but at Commons. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's already renominated and the administrator being discussed there. The administrator on commons violated their own policy by SUPERVOTING on the request and ignoring the laundering concerns. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So, we need to confirm that it was taken by the U.S. Government. A transition official or an official working on behalf of the official transition would count. However, I just want to note you are incorrect in the way you have cited the White House's copyright policy. The White House, legally, cannot pull a picture from the public domain if it was produced by the White House. Congress would have to amend copyright law for them to be able to do so. So, again, I agree with the above. We just need to wait on ownership confirmation. Cliffmore (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The WH needs to clearly label or footnote the images. This doesn't help. How is anyone supposed to know which material is government-produced and which is third-party content. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Whether or not it is in the public domain, this is his inaugural photo, not his official portrait, which has not yet been taken.

ColdestWinterChill (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• We cannot question reliable sources and the official White House website is a reliable source. If the White House website says the portrait is public domain then that's good enough for Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can and do question whether an image is appropriately licensed or not before we use it. If there is any doubt, which there is here, then the image is to be presumed copyrighted until proven otherwise by an explicit release from the photographer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are misstating the Commons policy. The Commons policy is "significant doubt" not "any doubt" as you say. And there is not significant doubt in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we wait until his Presidential portrait is released before changing the image? This is merely a portrait for the inauguration, same with JD Vance's. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a better image than the old one. No reason to wait. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Better/worse is a matter of subjectivity which isn't the issue here. It is about selecting which picture is most appropriate for the article, and that to me is going to be his presidential portrait once it is released at some point this year. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

When I said better I meant most appropriate for the article. There have been many discussions where editors stated that the old photo was a poor choice because it is so old. In those discussions, it seemed the consensus was that the problem was not that we have to use the official photo, but that there is not a better (more appropriate) photo that we can use on WP. I think the new photo is a better representation than the 2017 photo. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

2017 is acceptably old, to me, at this stage in life. The new photo is atrociously biased. Old photo should favored. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo is used as the profile picture for the official POTUS twitter account, so it already is being used by the US government as his official photo for now for his second term Btomblinson (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". The new image should be reverted ASAP. If nobody bothers to answer these concerns I will do it myself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The footnote for "natural" clarifies this just means we want the natural choice. I'm not sure why you think it would be unnatural or that high quality reference works wouldn't use the image this subject has chosen to represent themselves as their official photo. I don't think users will find it shocking that the official photo released by the subject will be what we lead with. -- JFHutson (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"this subject has chosen to represent themselves" does not matter. The MOS is pretty clear about the need for an image similar to what's used in reference works, NOT self promotional works. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Other copies and usage

- Just FYI - File:Donald Trump official portrait, 2025.webp - File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg.Moxy🍁 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed with should wait, until the official WH portraits come out. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

File:TrumpPortrait.jpg Moxy🍁 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Image on many articles because of Template:Donald Trump series. Moxy🍁 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Look likely that an RFC may be required, because the 'new' image looks terrible. The lighting, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Poor Commons.... So much clean up to do - they got so many of these... let alone crop versions. Moxy🍁 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with @GoodDay. This image should not be used. It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Wikipedia. It is a purely promotional-emotional photograph. There is no reason to not use the more neutral photo from a few years ago. I urge editors to at least express themselves in this matter, since this is an extremely serious issue in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Expressing myself. I would support the 2017 official portrait over this Trump self-promotional hijack of Wikipedia. I wish us luck in seeking a consensus for that, between Trump-supporters and old-image-haters. Then, if anybody cares about other Trump articles, be prepared to fight the battle at each one individually. Then, be prepared for a continuous 4-year parade of drive-bys complaining about the infobox image. Consensus 1 would be amended to allow the exception; the 2017 is "an official White House portrait", but it's no longer "the official White House portrait" which is what #1 says. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Mandruss. This is self promotional hijack. Official portrait is not what Wikipedia guidelines favor. I'll repeat what I said on another comemnt. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". It should be reverted ASAP. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we have a consensus system in place and we can't declare a national emergency, call out the National Guard, and suspend normal process. "ASAP" will be less soon than we would prefer. But you can help things along by starting a new thread seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this with more attention, the firtst consensus item is so poorly presented, because it forces editors to favor a *future* picture without any agency. It should have never been allowed in the first place because it basically violates the most basic rules of the editing process on Wikipedia. An even bigger issue in my opinion. If you think that a new thread is needed I'll open it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Water under bridge, sorry you weren't around in 2016. A new thread is needed to provide a clear consensus to link in the list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

done. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Wikipedia." Neutral trumps non-neutral, but official trumps neutral. Of course, freely licensed trumps everything else (and official stuff is usually copyrighted), but in this case, if the copyright status of the portrait has been settled... Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Claim that Trump negotiated the Gaza ceasefire

There have been several edits claiming that Trump negotiated the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the day before he entered office. Last I checked, Biden was president when the ceasefire was announced. I am at my one revert already and cannot keep up with the additions. BootsED (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"How the Biden and Trump teams worked together to get the Gaza ceasefire and hostages deal done" https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/biden-trump-gaza-ceasefire-deal/index.html --FMSky (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, even bidens camp say it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And the wiki article doesnt even claim he negotiated it, just that he "helped" --FMSky (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Per @FMSky, CNN reported that they both played major roles.[11] As did the New York Times.[12] The question is whether or not it should be in the presidency section or the transition section. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion. MB2437 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to self-revert this - the wording was challenged, there's discussion ongoing, violation of 24-hour BRD. Trump wasn't president when both sides agreed to the plan Biden first proposed in May. Envoy Witkoff clearly stated that the Biden team was in charge. Saying that Witkoff "helped" (assisted) seems appropriate to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Witkoff also credited Trump with the ceasefire.[13] He stated that whilst Biden's team were the "tip of the spear", "no one has pride of authorship".[14] The wording in its current form seems most sensible, where no opinion on the matter is given. To satisfy due weight, we would also need to make it clear that Trump's incoming presidency expedited the process—which was at a long-standing stalemate—considerably. Biden officials acknowledged the deadline of Trump’s entry into office was a motivating factor in finally finding success after months of failure, per CNN. It's also worth noting that this article is about Trump, not the Biden administration; it's like if I were to write in Angel Di Maria's article, "Di Maria won the World Cup and scored in the final, but Messi scored more goals." It is not exactly challengeable to simply state that Trump and his administration helped, which is a fact verified by several reliable sources.[15] MB2437 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mb2437:, see preceding edit, I forgot to ping you. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And enacted a day prior is unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"The ceasefire is now due to take effect on Sunday, when the first hostages should be released — the day before Trump’s January 20 inauguration", per Financial Times.[16] MB2437 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of "Trump's victory sparked numerous protests in major U.S. cities" in 2016 section

JackTheBrown, you have removed content on the page that has been here for years. I am at my 1RR on this. BootsED (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the text should be kept. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems it may have been reverted more than once. [17] Cheers. DN (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing some digging and apparently Jack has removed this three times since January 18, 1, 2, 3, and had it reverted each time,1, 2, 3. BootsED (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss self-reverted, this is revert 3. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have Mandruss on the brain. Look again. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Trump be added to the category of "American Zionists?"

I don't think he's ever formally labelled himself as such, but he has been very pro-Israel during his political career. NesserWiki (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: absolutely NO, supporting Israel militarily doesn't mean being Zionist. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding JacktheBrown's opinion. While Trump is pro-Israel, he is not necessarily a Zionist, unlike Joe Biden who very blatantly described himself as one and is the main reason that category applies to Joe but not Donald. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletions from article

I noticed that a very large amount of information was just deleted from the article. Included in this deletion was the religion section. Religion played a particularly large role in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency and having a few sentences that describe his religious views is not undue. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That editor has been previously advised: If you edit en masse, don't complain if you are challenged by reversion en masse. That edit could've been split into five or six, making things considerably easier for their colleagues. I'm not going to challenge because I don't care about that content, but I would support anybody who saw fit to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources indicating that Rev. Normal Vince Peale had a significant influence on Donald Trump.[18][19][20][21] Also, Trump switched from Presbyterian to nondenominational Christianity which is a type of evangelical Christianity. And Trump has won elections through courting the evangelical vote. So I am very firmly against taking out the religious section of the article given religion's influence on Donald Trump. Knox490 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Anupam, regarding your edit summary here, where did you obtain consensus for that edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Following Mandruss, the edits by Nikkimaria should have been made into five or six so it'd be easier to analyze. That being said, the religion sub-section does deserve inclusion in the article given the role of faith in Donald Trump's life, and also its role in American politics in general. A significant share of the American population wouldn't vote for an atheist president.[22] Lorstaking (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)U to

User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comment. I started this discussion on the talk page in order to determine whether the information should be kept or restored. Thus far, it looks like consensus has leaned towards the former. I did see that you also removed information about where Trump went to Sunday School, though I did not restore that yet. Would you be able to explain why you removed that short clause? I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually User:Nikkimaria, nevermind. It looks like User:FMSky restored the clause regarding Sunday School, which I thought was helpful to have in describing Donald Trump's upbringing. The source text, Historical Dictionary of the Donald Trump Administration (published by Rowman & Littlefield) included both his primary education at Kew-Forest School, as well as his religious education through Sunday School at First Presbyterian Church in the paragraphs describing his upbringing. I believe that we should do the same. I would love to hear your comments as well User:FMSky. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But you restored the content before starting this discussion.

This article is overly detailed, and is only becoming more so with each passing day. Per WP:SS, the best approach to addressing that is keeping a high-level overview here, and deferring detail to subarticles. That means things like his Bible (as previously discussed) and his Bible collection should be included elsewhere.

By the same token FMSky's revert should be undone. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The current consensus now supports the presence of the section in the article and I agree with User:FMSky's edit that reinstates the location of his Sunday School. As has been pointed out, religion plays an important role in the United States and a short section is helpful in this article. I just noticed that a large amount of information was just added to the article. If detail is to be removed, it can start there or elsewhere but a few sentences on Donald Trump's basic demographic information and upbringing should be mentioned in this article. I might recommend trimming information about his views on exercise, sleep time or golfing interest, all of which has less bearing on the biography than the role that faith plays in his life (and in the election). The inauguration itself, which was held yesterday, was shrouded in religious imagery and wishing to remove it seems short-sighted. I am open to seeing what others might have to say. Anupam^Talk 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

By all means propose removal of other extraneous details - that would be a great improvement. But in any event the Bibles should go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise, I could agree to removal of the just the sentence "Trump himself has a personal collection of Bibles", provided that there is another suitable place on Wikipedia where this information could be reinstated. Let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 12:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we include Trump's mass pardon of January 6th convicts in the lead?

It does seem relevant, especially in relation to the January 6th capital attack. He said he would do it, and on his first day in office in his second term he did it. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It has been noted in the articles for his second presidency and the J6 attack Btomblinson (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who is appalled by the pardons, I don't think so. The reference to "his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack" seems sufficient for the lede. NME Frigate (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove top article wording

@CNC33 we should remove the felon part, while he is that’s not appropriate for the top line summary of a living person considering he is the current POTUS Btomblinson (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted.[23] ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

Btomblinson (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the most biased article in the entire Wikipedia

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.

---

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.

---

At least the introductory paragraphs should be written in a neutral tone. Mention some positives. He is the President of the United States and a loved and respected leader around the world. Nir007H (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

While I disagree with the later half, the top section before the info box should be concise and neutral, the part of Cleveland and his felony conviction shouldn’t be at the top Btomblinson (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mandruss, please stop shutting down discussion. It is appropriate on WP pages to discuss ways to improve the article, even if you disagree. User:Nir007H and User:Btomblinson, please feel free to ignore the warning above and continue discussion. --JFHutson (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

All we ask. If anyone believe the article is biased, please propose a change. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's talk about it. That's what this page is for I think. -- JFHutson (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, then tell us one thing we say that is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As I advised you on your talk page, this one qualified for handling per consensus 61, but that didn't happen because the editor who got to it first (an admin by the way) was not aware of 61 or had forgotten about it. We conform to our consensuses even if you disagree. I don't think this is a hill you want to die on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that a consensus on a page that you give a special number to means that further discussion about it is verboten? No one is required to conform to "our consensuses," the article conforms to the consensus of editors formed on talk pages. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it means there has to actually be a meaningful request not just "this page is biased", we need to have something we can say yes or not to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A civil and productive way to respond would be to say that, rather than closing discussions before they start. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is required to conform to "our consensuses," Well that's just patently false, unless we've been doing it wrong for the past 10 years. Hundreds of experienced editors have come and gone during that time, and you're the first to say anything remotely like that. Consensus is consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean that no one is required to conform their opinion to some consensus and never express disagreement. WP:Consensus can change -- JFHutson (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. So open a thread to propose a change to consensus 61 and see how far you get. Until that passes, consensus 61 remains in effect and is respected. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What I'm reacting to is your disruptive and uncivil behavior of closing discussions. It violates WP:TPO and it discourages editors from discussion. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Its not policy, but just saying "this page is biased" adds nothing and can be seen as wp:soapboxing. After all I have to say is "not its not", and discussion stops. users need to make constructive comments. Or we just get a circular discussion of "Ohh yes it is, Ohh no it isn't". Which just wastes space and user's time in having to read it. For example, in the last 10 minutes what (constructive) has come out of this, have you (for example) made one concrete suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop closing discussion. If someone is soapboxing, there are ways to deal with that. They might ultimately end in closing a discussion, but what was done here makes Wikipedia look like it has thought police. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is for users to read the FAQ and stop wasting our time. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The FAQs can be helpful, but treating them like the approved narrative, where disagreement means your comment is hatted and you're accused of wasting the VIP Wikipedians' time makes us look bad. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this is not about any FAQ despite what Steven says. It's about a long-standing consensus at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors should also be allowed to challenge the long-standing consensus. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, did I not already respond to that point?? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow if you did. Are you saying that the only approved way to complain about bias on this page is to go to that special page and say "I hereby challenge Consensus 61" and give my reasons? That's not how this works. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For illustration of how we propose changes to consensus, see #Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 and #Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So I gather you disagree with consensus 61. I have already told you what you can do about that. This is not it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read it, so not sure. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Then how can you disagree with it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You haven't read the consensus item, or the supporting discussion? If the latter, you really don't need to read the supporting discussion unless you suspect that the consensus item does not accurately reflect it. If the former, why are you raising such a fuss when you don't even know what we're talking about? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am raising a fuss over editors and apparently an admin hatting peoples conversations for disagreement with the approved narrative. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Aka complying with consensus. This is truly getting tiresome. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Complying with consensus means that the article complies with consensus. Commenting on a talk page in a way that does not agree with the consensus should be encouraged. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a departure from how we've done things since #61 was established in May 2023. You're welcome to propose a change to that as well. Not in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, all this time I assumed "Concensus 61" was something about the page not being biased against Trump. I apologize for the confusion. I disagree with that procedure and I believe it violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but I guess you're right that it needs to be dealt with a different way. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So, all this could have been avoided if you had bothered to follow the link I provided for your convenience at your UTP? Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was dumb and I do apologize for wasting time. I assumed it was a content thing and not a procedure thing. Not a total waste of time because I do think this page is being handled in an Orwellian way and reflects badly on the project. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So, let's see one suggested edit, just one we can discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not close this discussion; it was closed by admin EvergreenFir. I reverted your incorrect attempt to reopen it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize for that misunderstanding. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK lets demonstrate "This page is biased", not a good post. "Donald Trump is X and we need to say this" is as it clearly states what needs to be done. Does that make it clear? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor said more than "this page is biased," and many productive talk page discussion start with a vague concern which is developed into a concrete proposal through discussion. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, two comments on this excerpt that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

• Progress on denuclearization: Putting in wikivoice that denuclearization constitutes progress is inappropriate.
• The text reads ambiguously on Trump's responsibility for the lack of ensuing denuclearization, naturally reading as him being responsible. At a minimum, this is contested (e.g. structural factors more responsible) failing WP:YESPOV.

Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue, for others or myself if I can get around to it. Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming Trump for bankruptcies, and it spends hundreds of words covering them. Yet, according to a Politifact article the page already cites, this is misleading:

"Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry.

Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thanks for the smear. You're reading something into our text that isn't there. No idea how a 2016 factcheck of something Hillary Clinton said ended up as the source for this sentence: Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses: the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company. Thia is a newly created issue by editors new to the article and its subject condensing and trimming content without attention to the sources. Here's a link to the page as it used to be, with the RS supporting our allegedly misleading text that Trump filed for Chapter 11 protection six times. I'll fix the problem as soon as I get around to it. Might be a while what with hundreds of edits every day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The smear? I don't know what you mean by that, I was trying to be helpful, I apologise if I'm missing something. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see you edited the text while I wrote to clarify, thankyou. I do disagree that I'm reading something into the text that isn't there, it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves to assume he was incompetent in some way, indeed that is a major point of the Politico piece. The context omitted is an issue for WP:YESPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Flagging an issue" by adding it to a section with the heading "This is the most biased article in the entire Wikipedia" — that's saying "while we're on the subject" of bias. Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming, it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves — how do you suggest we describe e.g. the six bankruptcies so that readers will assume competency? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Companies owned by Trump filed for..."? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sole owner, and he personally took credit for them: What I’ve done is I’ve used, brilliantly, the laws of the country. And not personally, just corporate. And if you look at people like myself that are at the highest levels of business, they use – many of them have done it, many times. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So Trump sees this as a positive achievement? Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

During a 2015 presidential debate: And I made a lot of money in Atlantic City and I'm very proud of it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I can create a new section in the future. The text in this instance is meaningfully skewed against Trump, as a product of failing WP:YESPOV. It's not about assuming competency, it's about not assuming incompetency. This can be done by giving DUE weight to what Politico describes as experts describing Trump's conduct as "acting as any investor would". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So, opinion good, as opposed to opinion bad? But yes, not piling on to these general anti-Trump bias comments would be an improvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue, - Why? Your "opportunity to flag an issue" is the "New section" link at the top of this page. Can you say "hijack"? This thread should already be in the archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss I did it based off Slatersteven's comment above: OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive?. I took from this that this thread would be used for discussing examples of potential NPOV issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. No. Offensive to any concept of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I can start threads for each issue. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it was an example of why this approach does not work, as we are now moving onto other issues as well. Discussions need to be focused on specific issues, not random free-for-alls. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Infobox image - which official portrait?

The current "consensus" at the top of this page links to the 2017 portrait, but the article uses the 2025 one. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed that link as unnecessary and currently problematic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No sources in intro?

Hello, I’ve noticed that there are many potentially controversial claims in the intro section of the article, but there are no sources to back them up. We should find appropriate reliable sources to justify these claims, or remove them if no such sources can be found. Ûtrechtâl (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

THey are cited in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." We have yet to reach a consensus for a case in the lead that needs a cite. Cite numbers add clutter, we strongly favor readability in the lead over saving a reader the effort of finding the related body content, and we believe that readers wanting to read the source for something they read in the lead are fairly rare. ("We" means a majority of this article's regular editors.) All this said, there is nothing preventing someone like you from proposing a certain citation or two and seeing if the proposal flies. If you do that, please do it in a separate thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

End birthright citizenship?

The main article says for children of illegal immigrants, which makes more sense. It seems pretty weird to just put 'end birthright citizenship' on this page, so could anyone add 'end birthright citizenship [for children of illegal immigrants]' as is done on the main page? AHWikipedian (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox

Original heading: "Challenge consensus item 1" ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

current consensus item [1] This poorly presented consensus item as led to Trump dictating the image used on the Wikipedia page. The 2025 White House portrait blatantly violates MOS:LEADIMAGE.

- "Lead images should be natural (Natural means the obvious or usual type of image.)" - "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" - "Lead images should be of least shock value"

This photo of Trump is extremely emotional and aggressive, even the lighting is heavily fabricated and does not reflect "natural" photos used in most articles. The shock value is undeniable to me. It should be reverted to the 2017 as soon as a consensus is reached. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per proposer, but the consensus item is not the problem here. Without it, we would still need consensus to stabilize the choice of infobox image. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Which is fair, and part of the Wikipedia process. But imagine we get to a proposal that say "use the image used in the most viewed article of that year by the NYT on the subject". That would sound atrocious. Might as well make pages edited directly by an AI algorithm at that point. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm changing your heading to something that will attract more attention. Not everybody knows what #1 is, and the fact that this seeks to amend #1 is incidental. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  seems ok. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yes, the image is natural, the man is posing for the photo. Being an official image, it will surely be used by high-quality reference works. And "shock value" is for things like nudity or violence, not for a mere way to look at the camera. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - reiterating my comments above regarding the current image. Again, we are not bound by official images, and we often use them as a matter of convenience because US Government works are free, high quality, and unremarkable/routine with regard to pose, lighting, composition, etc.. I would argue that the latter point comes into question here. Do we have any more recent alternatives, given the first White House portrait is now 7 years old? Connormah (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly a good argument. If were bound to use official images, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. We don't try to use official images because of being bound to do so, but because the official image is in most cases the most easily recognizable image of a topic. Cambalachero (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Questions - I'm a bit confused here. All U.S. presidents' articles since FDR are using the last official portrait. Is this a Wiki-wide consensus if it's not in the rules? And, if so, why change it? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is no "wiki wide consensus" to enforce anything of the sort. The reason for the change are in my original post. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per proposal, revert to the status quo 2017 White House portrait. The 2024 version is very jarring and unnatural to the reader due to the lighting's attempt to replicate the notoriety of his mugshot. The 2017 is a better reflection of his entire life. TNstingray (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Au contraire, the official image of his from this year is probably a more accurate summary of his most important moments in life. BarntToust 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, the result of this discussion should apply to the JD Vance lede image as well. TNstingray (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Negative. Changes to JD Vance are discussed at Talk:JD Vance. Discussion there can refer to discussion here, but that isn't binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - restoring the 2017 image, until we get an updated standard looking image from the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: the MOS says that the image should be natural. This image is completely authentically Trump. It also says images should be neutral. WP:TRUMPRCB explains why content expressive of a less-than-ideal outlook of a subject is allowed, because it is reality. It's a reality that this 2025 photograph expresses the harsh reality of Trump to the best of Daniel Torok's ability. BarntToust 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  "harsh reality"? This is a promotional photo released by Trump itself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. What could be more natural than to use the image the subject has chosen as their official portrait? Does anyone really think it's shocking to find the subject's official portrait at the top of their page? The examples used in the MOS for shocking images are of the Holocaust and genitalia. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  The subject itself has no priority on Wikipedia decisions. Wikipedia gives priority to other sources. the manual of style regarding lead images explains this well enough. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support changing back to 2017. New portrait is jarring and clearly politically charged with odd, unnatural lighting and an expression clearly imitating his mugshot. Not very inviting for a Wikipedia article. Angusgtw (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I fail to see your point with "The shock value is undeniable to me". There is 0 shock value here. Its just a man staring at the camera. Calling it "extremely emotional and aggressive" is also a huge stretch. Databased (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reverting to 2017 image. anikom15 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support 2017 image. Wikipedia is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. The new image, putting all copyright concerns (still unresolved) aside, is intended to be propaganda. That's not uncommon or limited to Trump - other presidents have used their inauguration materials to advertise themselves as "ready to get to work" or similar. His official image from 2017 is much more natural - note that natural does not mean "how this person always appears", but instead means "without any unnecessary emotion" and similar. The new image is not neutral - it is intended to invoke his mugshot from his booking in a civil criminal case, which itself was intended to be propaganda. Revisit if/when a new official portrait is issued, iff it is as neutral as his old one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. I'm afraid that horse left the barn months ago. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for describing this in detail. This is blatantly constructed advertisement material. It has no place on a wikipedia article, nor for Trump or any other political figure. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is his official portrait, official portrait of the President of the United States. So why not, I am sure he is proud of this photo. Dasomm (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not his official portrait as President. This was an image he had taken on his own accord before he was inaugurated. Official portraits are an entirely different thing, regardless of what Trump calls it. Regardless, Wikipedia does not care whether an image is "official" or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  wait, this isn't even the official portrait? then it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not care whether he's proud of it, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Feelings for or against the subject do not matter. If the White House says today that this image is the official portrait, then it is the official portrait, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of the discussion for now. If in a few weeks they have Trump sit for a more traditional style and pose, then we'll switch to that one. The beauty and joy of being a non-paper encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not have to follow the White House choices for lead images. What is "end of discussion" for you is not an argument here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - wishing to change the article image to one that is eight years old for what seems, from most supporters, to be admittedly political reasons, is a bizarre perversion of MOS policy.
  This policy has been determined by RfC in the past, and would most appropriately be challenged in the same manner.
  I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.
  To those saying this portrait is not 'official', you are explicitly contradicted by the White House. Do you think there's some legal prescription for an official portrait? Like it only counts if the Secretary of Photography takes it with the Presidential Camera on Presidential Portrait Day? Ridiculous.
  I can guarantee that changing the image will open this talk page up to a torrent of objections from casual readers, as well as (justified) external criticism of Wikipedia's bias problem, which we just can't seem to resolve. Riposte97 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one. Well then feel free to blame me for that:[24] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Before opening an RFC a full discussion has to take place. This photo does not correspond to the photos usually used in reference material about the subject, this is a fully doctored image, if this is for you a "political reasons" to remove it then everything is political, even MOS. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Both images essentially show the same thing, and both were authorized by Trump himself (he seems to be somewhat fond of looking "serious" and "tough" on pictures, as he has used similar photos on his social media accounts for many years, and that is how he chose to look even on his mugshot). In my view, both images have roughly the same validity to be on the infobox, but perhaps the most recent one should be used. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing the section header for 2021-2025 to "Inter-presidency (2021-2025)"

I think that this would be simpler than "first post-presidency" or "between presidential terms". WorldMappings (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Slightly Oppose only on the basis that the standard set by Gover Cleveland's page should be followed through on here. When his term ends, I think having it labeled "second post-presidency" would be better (I'm also not sure his second post-presidency will be very long nor very impactful, but that's just a matter of opinion and not too relevant). Twinbros04 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as said above, follow Grover Cleveland page and use second post-presidency after this one. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I'd rather "Out of office (2021–2025)". - GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Egads no. That comes across like we're characterizing 2021 to 2025 as an interregnum, that Trump somehow rightfully deserved two terms but was interrupted. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not sure that follows. In studying Trump, it is simply a description of the sequence of events. It would obviously be out of place in a broader history of the US, or on an election page. Riposte97 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose; I feel like labeling 2021-2025 as the "inter-presidency" implies that it was a planned break rather than an unsuccessful reelection, and that he was entitled to have another administration. I think for neutrality's sake we keep it as "between presidencies", as was done with Grover Cleveland. Tantomile (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how inter-presidency implies such. To me at least, it's just the time between Trump's two non-consecutive presidencies. WorldMappings (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As Tantomile said, it sounds as if it was one presidency with an intermission. The current heading "Between presidencies" is the best option, short and to the point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

“Inaugural” vs “official” portrait

I think the infobox picture should say “inaugural” rather than “official” portrait. AFAIK—correct me if I’m wrong—nobody in the administration has confirmed if the inaugural portrait will also be the official one (as happened in Obama’s first term). Biden and Harris also had inaugural portraits that did not become the officials. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support WorldMappings (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's on his White House page. I believe that's the definition of "official". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There was an attempt to change the caption to "Official inaugural portrait, 2025" per the Description on the image's file page, but that was reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. According to the description at Wikimedia, it's the "Official Inaugural Portrait of Donald Trump" from the "Official 2025 Inauguration Invite". But good luck trying to add that. I did, and here's what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia - Could be wrong, but I don't think MediaGuy768 equates to Wikimedia.[25] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, I feel like the evidence is not clear enough yet to call the portrait his official one. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is the official portrait until the White House states that it isn't. Trying to qualify it as "not really official" or "just the inaugural portrait" seem to be based on feelings and not facts. Zaathras (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Seem to be based" — was there a statement declaring the image to be the official portrait? It doesn't have a caption on the WH page where it's sitting next to a few lies about landslide victories and extremist policies of the radical left. We couldn't keep the official Fulton County Jail "portrait" because of WP policies, so now we have an official, even if somewhat airbrushed, imitation, so yay. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC describes it as his official portrait, explicitly, rather than his inaugural one. The BBC probably would not make this claim and make it the basis of an article if they hadn't rigorously verified it. The wording in the article also shows that they believe it to be "official", contrasting it with the October 2017 portrait: "The portraits were released by the Trump transition team just days before Trump and Vance's inauguration on 20 January. The official portraits of Trump and his former Vice-President Mike Pence were not released until nine months after they were both sworn in." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds sufficient per WP. Thanks for linking this. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not the official portrait clicked or shot by the White House. It is just the portrait clicked by Trump's campaign team and Inaugural committee. The new portrait might be taken soon and released through the website and social media platforms of the President of the United States and the White House. In another news from BBC page, it shows that it is the portrait of President-elect and not of the President. Please see it - https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250120-donald-trumps-official-portrait-the-17th-century-painting-that-unlocks-this-mysterious-image . So I don't think to keep the new portrait right now. I propose to keep the old portrait of 2017 until a new portrait is issued. VNC200 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Strangely the BBC seem to have written several articles on this image. Here it is also explicitly compared to other official portraits, such as this one of Bush the Younger. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another article from The Guardian also shows that this is the portrait issued by Trump-Vance inaugural committee and not by the White House. Please look into it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/donald-trump-jd-vance-official-portrait . Change it in old format. VNC200 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Local policies and guidelines, e.g. Consensus item #61

I noticed there was a discussion regarding Consensus item #61. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. If editors here think these should be more restrictive, for example suppressing some discussions that don't violate them, it seems that those editors should take their case to the policy or guideline talk page instead of making their own local policies and guidelines. Such a restrictive local policy or guideline might be considered contrary to the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Criticism of an article is part of the process of making progress towards improving it. One can take it or leave it. It seems improper to restrict criticism that doesn't violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it is thought that such criticism should be suppressed, then one should try to incorporate that into the appropriate Wikipedia policy or guideline. On the other hand, if such discussions do violate a Wikipedia policy or guideline, then stating so in the consensus item would legitimize it. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus 61 was a solution to the ongoing problem of bias complaints from readers who knew nothing about Wikipedia content policy. Problems effectively addressed by #61 included:

• The very significant amount of editor time consumed, time that editors could have spent improving the article.
• Inconsistent, always incomplete, often disrespectful, sometimes just plain incorrect responses attempting to explain policy, now replaced by WP:TRUMPRCB.

As for PAGs and our authority to do this:

• Why has no admin ever commented about that? Why has this issue never gone to WP:AE?
• There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting #61. Therefore it was within our discretion to do it. We used that discretion. It's called innovation.

AFAIK, most editors agree it has achieved its goals; at least I've heard positive feedback from a number of editors and negative feedback from none except you. I propose we not turn back the clock to that more primitive day. The consensus 61 discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 155#Handling bias complaints for your review. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. Are you suggesting that WP:TPO should anticipate the problem we were facing and explicitly authorize immediate closure of bias complaints from readers who don't understand Wikipedia content policy, provided they are provided explanation on a separate page? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Regardless, if necessary I have no problem invoking WP:IAR in this case: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you still believe, after all these years, that general discussion about bias at this article is a legitimate use of this page. It still is not; it still violates at least the spirit of WP:NOTFORUM. I believe I recall that you have been asked multiple times in the past to go to Village Pump to ask whether your belief is correct, and you have yet to do so. Refusal to do that is practically an admission that you know you're wrong. If you went to VP, they would tell you you're wrong, that would be on the record in the VP archive, and you would have to cease bringing this up periodically. You need to go get a community answer or stop flogging that horse carcass. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

One has to wonder how many times over the years this user has posted something of this nature, and how many times has it led to a course change. As some point, the complaining itself becomes tendentious. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

~8 and 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted. Is there some way we can address that here, rather than in a grand Wiki-wide project? I see it as one of the most fundamental issues with this article, which is consistently one of the highest-traffic on the site. One suggestion could be that we agree not to blanket-ban deprecated right-leaning sources. Riposte97 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Riposte97: How about a new subpage of this page for that purpose? Then advertise it here a la a normal discussion notice (just a heading and a wikilink), with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And I've already offered my UTP for that purpose, but I don't know how its 172 watchers would feel about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted which just brings us back to the oft-quoted "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." The Wikipedia follows the sources, if you don't like that then go take that up with reality. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, but it sets a terrible precedent and could do more damage to the encyclopaedia as these were deprecated for good reasons. It’d be good to balance the narratives from the two sides though, just not use them for facts. It’s worth exploring Kowal2701 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I perhaps should have been more precise, and referred to sources labelled 'biased'. I have noticed that in the past at this page, some right-leaning sources are dismissed out of hand as being biased (based sometimes on rather flimsy reasoning at RSN). They are routinely removed. However, the article is riven with left-leaning sources that are arguably equally biased. A good example is provided by Rollinginhisgrave below. That is definitely something we can address with sufficient attention.

Mandruss, thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind it. To be clear, is it to workshop alternative wording at a subpage, or discuss structural interventions? Riposte97 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's to keep general article bias discussions off this page (such as the recent comments in this very thread). Otherwise, whatever people think is useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. On second thought, the notice would need to be pinned, period. Otherwise people would be linking to the subpage in other threads anyway. It wouldn't make sense to limit awareness of the subpage to people who saw the notice in the first 6 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Second nonconsecutive presidency/Grover Cleveland in the lead

was placed in the lead for the umpteenth time. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And, since it's a bold edit that was challenged more than once, could someone please remove it unless and until there's a consensus to add it? I've used up my 3RR for the day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done [26] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Slight changes to lead section (proposal)

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.

---

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

I think that this format is more grammatically correct and in general, flows easier. WorldMappings (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Continuing discussion on bankruptcy

Responding to Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment in the now closed thread above Talk:Donald Trump#This is the most biased article in the entire Wikipedia

Space4Time3Continuum2x The two sources I flagged there for opinion were:

• How Donald Trump Evolved From a Joke to an Almost Serious Candidate verifying "His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts"
  • Described at WP:RSP as "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed." The article was an opinion piece by a non-subject matter expert, in a source flagged for bias and unattributed. Hence I tagged it as insufficient for verifying the claim.
• Donald Trump is waging war on political correctness. And he’s losing. verifying "[Trump] frequently made claims of media bias."
  • Analysis by Chris Cillizza, whose analysis has received a mixed reception. It is unattributed, and on a WP:NEWSBLOG hosted by the Washington Post, without apparent editorial control. You may assess this as sufficiently reliable, but I think an argument can be made for it being insufficiently reliable so as to warrant being tagged, and the source being replaced with one without such concerns.

The opinion at hand: cescribed in non-opinion reporting by a third party, in a reliable source with substantially less bias concerns (and what bias issues have been raised should mean the article should be biased against Trump), multiple subject-matter experts are surveyed, and a consensus is reported, that simply presenting the number of bankruptcies misleads readers about Trump's incompetency. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a headache and Jim Beam, signing off for today. I'll get to this tomorrow. Space4Tcatherder🖖 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, enjoy your evening, I hope you feel better with rest. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearly simply noting the number of bankruptcies is misleading as it is a small portion of his failed businesses. And the casino industry was not having difficulties when his three casino businesses went under. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Format of Second presidency early actions

Donald Trump#Second presidency early actions

Does anyone else think a 171-word sentence is a bit excessive? I'd favor a bulleted list in this case, which I think would be better than sentence-splitting. Let us ignore specific content details here; this is about format.

Upon taking office, Trump:

• signed a series of executive orders that withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement
• rolled back transgender rights and recognition of any genders outside male and female
• froze new regulations
• froze hiring of non-military federal workers
• founded the Department of Government Efficiency
• barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries
• prevented federal censorship of free speech
• reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terror
• reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers
• issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 January 6 rioters
• designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations
• attempted to end birthright citizenship for new children of undocumented immigrants
• renamed Denali back to Mount McKinley
• renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America
• granted TikTok a 75-day pause before it would be banned
• declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces
• granted Ross Ulbricht a full and unconditional pardon

―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Duplicate section headings

MOS:HEAD says section headings need to be unique. Just for starters, section links in the page history and contribs should be reliable. There is currently no way to link to "Foreign policy" under "Second presidency"; try this and see: Donald Trump#Foreign policy.

I already "disambiguated" "Early actions",[27] but the following remain and this list is sure to grow. Foreign policy, Trade, Middle East, Israel. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's either "First presidency foreign policy" and "Second presidency foreign policy", or "Foreign policy 1" and "Foreign policy 2". Et cetera. I see no other alternative. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)