Wikipedia

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 205

< Talk:Donald Trump
Latest comment: 5 months ago by ScottishFinnishRadish in topic RfC: deleting sentences from second presidency section
Archive 200←Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205Archive 206Archive 207→Archive 210

Convicted felon mention in the first sentence

Latest comment: 7 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion

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

Removed {{rfc}} template. RfC is for when you can't reach consensus without RfC. We have a consensus that you can find in the talk page archive. We could create a consensus list item for that if you think it might help. Donald Trump is not George Santos or anybody else. For Wikipedia's purposes, Donald Trump is unique. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah everyone is unique, but why would Santos be mentioned as a convicted felon, and Trump, being one, not?
It's funny because this is the exact reason why I've created this account, I saw George Santos being a "convicted felon" and I thought: "hmm, i wonder if Trump is as well".
What happened to objectivity and fairness? N0o0n3123 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
everyone is unique More accurately, Trump's case is unique. That means all the factors combined, including the fact that Trump is a sitting president of the United States. All of this has been covered in previous discussion. You are not presenting any new argument, you are merely disagreeing with the consensus and seeking to have it explained to you because you don't know how to research archived discussions (I presume). Very few consensuses please everyone. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is actually unique, he's the first felon ever to be elected. Shouldn't it be emphasized then?
I assure you, I do not care about archived discussions. This is a discussion I've found so I post a comment, as simple as that, you can wrap your head around it (I presume).
Now a bit less passive-aggressive: if there is a consensus, sure, I still think it's just not fair and I am allowed to cry about it whenever I can, thanks. N0o0n3123 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
"I am allowed to cry about it whenever I can". Tell me you're on the left without telling me you're on the left. Classic. Knickd1979 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
There's entry #69 in the consensus list above that covers this, although not verbatim. That was from January 2025 and there haven't been new criminal convictions since then so probably not much would change with another discussion. Personally I think we should add it, or remove it from other similar articles, for the sake of internal consistency. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Wasn't this already discussed? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Or might we consider something along the lines of, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States AFTER WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE AND ALL SWING STATES DESPITE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS WEAPONIZING THE DOJ IN AN ATTEMPT TO IMPRISON HIM SO THAT HE COULD NOT CAMPAIGN. OF COURSE, SINCE THERE WERE NO ACTUAL VICTIMS AND THE BANKS INVOLVED SAID THEY WOULD EAGERLY DO BUSINESS WITH HIM AGAIN, NO ONE WITH COMMON SENSE CONSIDERS HIM A "FELON". MEANWHILE, LATITIA JAMES IS LEARNING ABOUT KARMA NOW, HEH? Knickd1979 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Why would we add that? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Election Denial

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It mentions when it talks about the 2024 election that Trump didn't concede. It fails though to mention that he never admitted he lost the election to the public, or at least that he believes it was stolen from him. WikusG (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 2020 election? Can you suggest reliable sources we can cite? Trump sort of admitted that he lost in 2020 at least once, and then claimed he lost through fraud. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It was late when I added that section. I'm sorry, and you're right. Here is another article saying what that NBC one you used did. Maybe we should add a part about him admitting it then? We probably shouldn't do that though because that section would seem partisan. WikusG (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago45 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Wait I am confused. Why did you argue for hyperlinks slowing down web pages and are now posting a link that claims they do not? What is your position? OmegaAOLtalk? 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
"The number of hyperlinks in a web page has the least effect on the downloading speed of the web page compared to..." least effect, not no effect. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Negligible. Extremely, extremely, negligible.
The size of this page is 2.42 megabytes (I checked). Adding a hyperlink to it would be 60 bytes, or 0.000023% of the article's size. For reference, the Wikipedia "donate" banner would take up around 2% of this hypothetical article's size.
They do not cost rendering power either. Hyperlinks are just two HTML tags that are rendered on the machine along with all the other page content. Wikipedia editors are never discouraged from adding sentences due to page size; hyperlinks have the same effect in processing speed. OmegaAOLtalk? 06:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • 4, 2, 1, 3 - 4 is the best and great in my opinion. 2 is good and reads well, but does need a hyperlink in my opinion, as Fred Trump is notable. 3 has a hyperlink but violates the easter egging policy. 1 is the worst, as it's too vague and doesn't hyperlink. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify before my !vote that consensus is generally not a vote so whoever closes may want to factor that in. 4 3 1 2. Better to include the hyper link and his dad's name to give more info and allow people to click the page. Then I put 2 and 1 behind 3 as that also includes a link and then 1 ahead of 2 as that was the longstanding consensus before it was changed.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 1 - I've no interest in the other three options. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - Time's up, and it hasn't even been one whole day. Bishonen, any thoughts on the current straw polling on this page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Time's up? I thought this was just nearing a close, and decided to make a poll. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Let me clarify: I don't think time is UP, but I do think it's time for a poll to come into play. I'll edit my message to make that clear. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is an example of what I meant when I wrote that you may want to gain more editing experience before editing contentious articles. WP:TALK#REPLIED: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, ... if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC). For the record, this is the version I responded to: I think it's time to end this with a poll. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Again, I have 600+ edits, and have passed the extended protection requirement. Just because I haven't scanned every tiny segment of the massive pile of rules that Wikipedia has doesn't mean that I shouldn't be editing these articles.
    Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't agree with it. End of discussion. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2025

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Add these portals to see also section.

~2025-33245-85 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Can’t argue with that. NotJamestack (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Do we really need portals? I say no. We don't have'em in other US president bio pages, except for Barack Obama. PS - in the Obama situation, there's way too many portals, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2025

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Trump residence from White House to White House (presidential) and Mar-a-Lago (Florida)(private) SP9947 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. -- Response per consensus 74. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 19:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"very fine people on both sides"

Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

By insisting to perpetuate the same lie that so many other discredited sources are guilty of, Wiki hurts it's own cause. All one must do is simply watch Trump's full speech to hear what was actually said. Not only was he taken out of context, but his message expressed a clear condemnation of the "white supremacists" related to that protest. Ultimately, this type of blatant spread of misinformation is used to discredit sites like Wiki as being irresponsible which results in more people perceiving Trump as a victim of media bias. Do you not see the hypocrisy of lying and spreading known falsehoods while simultaneously criticizing your article subject of the same? If you lie about this, what else is a lie? Knickd1979 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to completely remove any mention of the "very fine people" comment unless the intention is to use it as an example of how Trump's opponents in the media seized on an opportunity to frame him as a sympathizer to white supremacists. My argument is that there is enough valid information out there, there is no need to include debunked falsehoods such as this. by doing so, Wiki becomes part of the problem and gets away from its own mission statement. Knickd1979 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Repeating what I said in this comment on August 14, archived here: "The consensus of this RfC less than three months ago was to keep the wording. See also: Unite_the_Right_rally#President Trump's response." Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Then, instead of answering with pre-packaged sentences, create a new vote and you'll see that its outcome will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31715-21 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
We will not keep having RFC's untill people get the result they want. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2025

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The content on this page has been written subjectively with an anti-trump position, with zero citations at all in the first 525 words. This, I know is against Wikipedia's policies and procedures. ~2025-34128-99 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
See WP:TRUMPRCB and consensus 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section where it states

In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the first heading.
 (...)
A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.

The first 525 words to which you refer is the lead of the article. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
My bad, I should have closed per #61. But too late now, and it'll be gone tomorrow anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 23:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Bubba Juice

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in 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.

Does anyone understand the reference to Bubba Juice? Lots of memes? ~2025-34218-20 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

What reference? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
So, this talk page is about improving the article about Donald Trump; not about obtaining explanations for random memes involving him. That said, this article from Newsweek may shed some light on the memes you are seeing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 17 November 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.

Linking of impeachment mentions in the lead

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that linking to the first and second impeachment pages would be appropriate, potentially by just linking "2019" and "2021" in the current lead sentence. I don't think this has been considered by a consensus yet. Doeze (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Listings

Latest comment: 7 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion

A dispute has arisen regarding which WikiProjects Donald Trump should be listed under; specifically with regards to the following: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Freedom of Speech, and WikiProject Law. If you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts as to why this page should or should not be listed as relevant under such projects. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, Mandruss, and Anythingyouwant: In light of your significant contributions to the Donald Trump article (as well as recent evidence of your continued interest in said article), you are invited to participate in a discussion regarding whether it is within the scope of Wikiprojects Discrimination, Freedom of Speech and Law. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below.
@GoodDay, Dimadick, and Muboshgu:Emiya1980 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"Should or should"?? GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
should or should not....Emiya1980 (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
With Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, the scope is rather vague. Per the WikiProject's main page, it covers forms and manifestations of discrimination, along with "Articles closely and explicitly related to these topics". Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech has a much wider scope, covering the "history of Freedom of speech, broadly defined". It explicitly covers books, case law, people, and popular culture related to that history. I don't really get the relevance of WikiProject Law here. Donald is not a legislator, a lawyer, or a judge. Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
His executive overreach as President has a detrimental impact on the rule of law in the United States. That's why I feel it is relevant. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
All of these listings are excessive. I can see vague connections to the others, but not Law, which he knows nothing about. It is better captured by the Crime and Criminal Biography project. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Connecting Trump to Discrimination seems a bit vague and subjective. Law & Freedom of Speech are applicable, yes, given the threats to jail or have people fired that criticize him, or punish states with Democratic governors. Zaathras (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
These proposed connections to these WikiProjects, appear to upset WP:NPOV, IMHO. Afterall, do we have these WikiProjects at Franklin D. Roosevelt's talkpage, concerning Japanese-Americans? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
With regards to WikiProject Discrimination, do the article's references to his crackdown on govt. employees who have benefited from DEI policies and his open support for violent white supremacist groups count for nothing? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Surprised to not see more editors giving their input. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
This is a low-profile article on a fairly obscure politician. I doubt that many users have added it to their watchlist.Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I would not list the Donald Trump article as part of any of those projects. It's a biographical article. If there is an article that focuses on their efforts to wipe out DEI (or a similar article specialization) then that article could be part of the appropriate projects. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 03:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Bold-revert-discuss cycle

Latest comment: 6 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Mandruss, "A racketeering case related to the 2020 election in Georgia is pending" was longstanding content when it was removed on November 6. Benhatsor challenged the removal today. GoodDay shouldn't have reverted the reinsertion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a Trump related page, for that information? I thought we were trying to control the length of this page. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The deletion still needs to be discussed here. BTW, the case is still pending in Georgia. The head of an association representing state prosecutors in Georgia, Peter Skandalakis, just took over the prosecution himself, probably the first step to killing it but officially it's still on. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The info belongs on another page, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Benhatsor gave no reason except "not discussed", thereby violating #43. GoodDay's only error was in not reverting per #43. And the article contains a lot of longstanding content that shouldn't be there, so I don't attach much weight to "longstanding". ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Consensus 43 is badly worded. The cited discussion is about adding content to the lead, not about removing longstanding content. Yovt removed the consensus version and ought to take the proposed edit to the Talk page after it was challenged. Their editsum was legal puffery; not the main focus of current matters. Hype, main focus? As long as the case (plain fact, not puffery) is pending, it's current. Your opinion (longstanding content that shouldn't be there) seems a little arbitrary, no? I saw Yovt's removal at the time but didn't think it worth the hassle to revert because sitting president/Georgia/new prosecutor/not with a ten-foot pole, exactly the way it is playing out now. But once it's been challenged, we should follow established procedure. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm reverting to GoodDay's patented DGAF response: Do what you want. lol. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
S4T3C, I recommend not re-adding the info. Place in one of Trump's other pages. We're trying to contain this page's size. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
What I wrote about Georgia prosecutors goes for me and that sentence, too: not gonna touch it with a ten-foot pole now. I wasn't the one who challenged its removal in the first place, just got a little tired of what looks like arbitrary interpretation of established procedure on this page to me. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Closing per consensus 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

It appears to me Donalds page contains obvious bias eg scholars and historians regard him as the worst President ever - perhaps some do but certainly not all. He regardless has a large following hence his second appointment and if one delves into Clinton / Bush / Biden or Obama there are some very unpalatable matters. ~2025-31061-00 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 24 November 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.

Trump Epstein

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Due to new details coming out on this matter such as Trump meeting with Epstein during thanksgiving 2017 as president would it be worth adding more to this section? John Bois (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it leading to an impeachment & likely conviction/removal from office? If not, then we should not add. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
We already have way too much. Belongs here Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Depends on the new details. Too early to tell or discuss. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Mention of ceasefires

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Trump has brokered several ceasefires and as a result has been nominated to win the Nobel Peace Prize by multiple important people. Shouldn't this be mentioned both in lede and body of the article?13:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC) Crampcomes (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Which he did not win, so not really all that relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
This is the list of people eligible to nominate candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize. There must be thousands, if not more, of them by now. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee doesn't announce the names of nominees, so we only know what the multiple important people have told Trump and the press for reasons of their own, such as the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia (yay, we've been invited to the White House; we're open for American investments). Doesn't belong in the body or the lead. Brokered several ceasefires: quoting PolitiFact, there’s a lot of uncertainty around Trump's role in these conflicts. As for what Trump called the "historic peace deal" between Azerbaijan and Armenia (which isn't mentioned in the PolitiFact article), quoting the International Center for Transitional Justice, "it neither is a treaty nor ends the 37-year Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Rather, it is a political framework that requires international support and attention." Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Should article include mention of the Assassination attempt in the lead?

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It does so in the article on Ronald Reagan, should it then also include it in this article? KILLGOESE (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a convincing argument. Please check the talk page archives for all of the past discussions on this precise topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Why aren't you at Talk:Ronald Reagan asking whether that should be removed from that article because it's not in this one? These comparisons are rarely useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Reagan was legitimately near death from his injuries. Trump got nicked in the ear. The two incidents are not really comparable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Size reduction efforts and WP:PRESERVE

Latest comment: 6 months ago32 comments8 people in discussion

Original heading: "Size reduction efforts should focus on presidential content". ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Copied from above as this section was unseen and largely ignored even though a number of comments showed agreement. We have talked about this for years, so let's do it. Follow summary style and simply use the leads from those main articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Original heading: "Misdirected focus doing real damage". ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Futile and misdirected concerns about size are causing HUGE violations of WP:PRESERVE.

Focus! Focus! Focus! All this attention to saving bits and pieces of bytes here and there is doing damage. The real problem, mentioned many times over the years, is the huge amount of presidential content. Focus on THAT! That will immediately resolve this problem without violating PRESERVE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

We have Second presidency of Donald Trump to handle recentisms. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Nearly all of the presidential stuff we have here should go. Use hatnotes and paragraph summaries, without too much detail.
To get a rough idea of how much we're dealing with, I have created a subpage here:
Doing something about this will immediately solve lots of issues.
I don't think this article is too large. Far from it, but the near total elimination of most of the presidential stuff should be done anyway. Drop thoughts about any other content and focus on this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. As everyone knows who has been around for the past ~8 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Your Trumpsizetest is a 51% reduction from Tuesday the 11th, by readable prose word count. Its PEIS "magic number" is 490 (be still my heart). ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
We had two important footnotes here that I moved to Early life and education of Donald Trump for safekeeping.
My eyes landed on §Domestic policy for cuts. It seems out of whack to have two paragraphs and a heading for §Anti-LGBTQ+ policies and then bury climate change. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Good catch, but also focus on the far larger presidential content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
By my reckoning (details available upon request), post-2015 content comprises 76% of the current article. Somewhat more if you include lead content and Assessments. I think that could and should be around 50%. Summary style would get us well below 50%. So do summary style for a few large sections and see where we are. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Every time I try to remove unnecessary presidential content, Space4Time3Continuum2x reverts me. I'm going to remove more unnecessary content now, but I'd love to actually discuss how a huge share of the content belongs in the body. Unfortunately editors want to have as much negative information on Trump as possible, even if there is negligible reporting on it by reliable sources. This is an article about Trump's entire life so minor details of his first or second administration do not belong in this article. I previously mentioned "Trump's second presidency has been less than a year and it's still almost 2,600 words and almost 19,000 characters in the body, not including sources/citations. Meanwhile, Obama's entire 8 year presidency has only a bit over 7,000 words and 46,000 characters in his article, not including sources/citations." Bill Williams 03:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
OTHERTHINGS... RS do write mostly negative things about Trump because most of what he does is negative. It is his own fault, and we are supposed to document it.
Otherwise, yes, we should not be adding to the presidential content. That should only be done at the presidential articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
@Bill Williams: You violated the 24-hr BRD rule at least once in your latest round of multiple removals. Haven't checked the other ones yet but this one was easy to find:
  1. Bold edit on November 12
  2. My challenge on November 12
  3. Your reinsertion in violation of the 24-hr. BRD rule
As I said in my editsum, it's a simple fact of Trump buying stock in companies affected by his changes to federal policies, as disclosed by him in a mandatory filing, it doesn't need multiple reliable sources, and personal enrichment isn't just "second term stuff that has not nothing to do with his personal life". There are multiple reliable sources, and I listed three of them in my editsum (NBC, Guardian, Reuters). I suggest that you self-revert and take a look at your other edits to see whether they also violate the 24-hr. BRD rule. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 13:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x: Apologies for that, I did not intend to reinstate the edit in violation of 24-hr BRD so feel free to add back the content as you wish. Bill Williams 22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)🖖 13:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

So much happening in the last few hours. But the page is certainly being trimmed. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that for WP:PRESERVE, which Valjean keeps citing, it says to consider "Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article." That's already been done for every single sentence of content that I'm removing. It's all in the second presidency of Donald Trump, or in the dozens of other articles on specific actions taken by Trump's second administration. So much bloated content is already preserved in other articles and does not belong in Trump's personal article. Bill Williams 06:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Bill, I retract my comments about your "topic ban" and have stricken them above. I did not realize it was lifted, so I was in error. Sorry about that. If that content is duplicated elsewhere, then it can be removed here, so try that rationale in your edit summary, rather than complaining about negative content about Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Valjean: thank you, I appreciate the apology. My points are twofold, which is that a) the content is duplicated elsewhere and not notable enough for this article, and b) the only reason it's included in this article is because some editors want to fill it with as much negative information on Trump as possible. I'm not trying to help Trump, I'm trying to cut down on irrelevant details in this bloated page. Bill Williams 22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I suggest you strike this: "b) the only reason it's included in this article is because some editors want to fill it with as much negative information on Trump as possible." That's a very bad faith accusation. Trump is a uniquely negative and damaged human being and president. Everything he does is based on his narcism, and he uses a flood of falsehoods as his main method to rule. Even Epstein said Trump has "Not one decent cell in his body" and "i have met some very bad people... none as bad as trump". RS happen to document that, so we can't avoid the article having a large, negative, bent, and that's a faithful documentation of RS, which document reality.
MAGA doesn't like that, but we do not bend our policies to suit them. NPOV requires we document these things, including the bias, so the negative bias in the content shows we are faithfully abiding by NPOV and documenting what biased RS say. Neither content nor sources are required to be neutral.
NPOV forbids we allow editorial bias to censor our content. This makes it difficult for MAGA editors to edit here, but some manage to put our policies and guidelines above their personal feelings while editing, and that's a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Valjean, your own efforts in this thread might be poorly interpreted; no one should be pointing fingers.
To the substance of what you've said, it's fallacious to suggest that because RS tend to view Trump negatively, that any particular negative statement is justified here. That's not what's under discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

We have various options available for size reduction, and we should start with those areas which are obviously unnecessary and bloated, and that is the presidential content. Take a look at my User:Valjean/sandbox/Trumpsizetest: Revision history.

Instead of making small and controversial attempts to reduce size, why not do something that really counts immediately? The presidential content is the motherlode of "too much in the wrong place", and that is not controversial at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you strike this: "b) the only reason it's included in this article is because some editors want to fill it with as much negative information on Trump as possible." That's a very bad faith accusation. A little realism, please. It's naive to suggest that there is not a substantial amount of liberal POV-pushing at this article and many others. This is because liberals far outnumber conservatives in participation here. It is not constructive to pretend that all or even most editors put the integrity of the encyclopedia before their own political viewpoints. A majority of us are incapable of doing so. They are here to tell the "truth" about Donald Trump and save democracy; that is their main mission, their reason for participating here; I don't care how articulately they deny that. This includes you, Valjean. (Case in point: Trump is a uniquely negative and damaged human being and president. Don't pretend this viewpoint does not infuse all of your participation on this page and in the article itself. You and others need to learn to check your viewpoints at the door and think and act like disinterested, apolitical robots.) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 01:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Throughout the history of this BLP since 2015, editors have complained that this page is too positive or too negative. We must guard against WP:RGW, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

What Riposte97 and Mandruss said is accurate. You Valjean; I didn't make bad faith accusations, I stated a fact that anti-Trump editors such as yourself are filling the article with irrelevant information just to fit in anything negative. You confirmed what I said because your immediate response was: Trump is a uniquely negative and damaged human being and president. Everything he does is based on his narcism, and he uses a flood of falsehoods as his main method to rule. Even Epstein said Trump has "Not one decent cell in his body" and "i have met some very bad people... none as bad as trump". Your personal animus against Trump is leading you to blatantly violate Wikipdia's rules so that this article fits your narrative. You then made bad faith accusations by saying that "MAGA doesn't like" how reliable sources have a negative slant against Trump and that "MAGA editors" have too much "editorial bias" that makes it "difficult" for them to edit here. In reality, this article has quite literally zero positive things to say about Trump, and certainly does not include any trivial details to positively boost his image. I'm going to continue removing unnecessary content from the article, and feel free to specifically object, but don't revert me because you want to keep any information as long as it's bad for Trump. Bill Williams 13:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

PEIS Condition Two - moderate urgency

Latest comment: 6 months ago24 comments8 people in discussion

("Condition Two" is not part of this page's conventions/subculture. I just made it up for this heading.) ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 06:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Per Tracking article size, the article's post-expand include size (PEIS) is approaching critical, again. If the PEIS exceeds the system-imposed limit, templates at the bottom of the article start breaking. If not broken, those templates produce a number of navboxes. Broken anything is a bad thing, even things that few readers see and fewer readers use. It would be sloppy and unprofessional.

The remedy is to reduce template use in the article. Three ways to do this are:

  • Trim unnecessary citations.
  • Trim body content and the associated citations.
  • Remove dispensable navboxes. Many navboxes contribute a considerable amount to PEIS, so one navbox might be worth ~30 citations.

The idea of converting some or all references to eliminate the citation templates has been considered and swiftly rejected. It's just a bad idea.

I would boldly remove some navboxes myself, but I have no concept of the relative values of those navboxes, if any. I have never used them, even before I became an editor. I don't know of a way to determine how much a given navbox is being used by readers.

Let me know if you want an update on PEIS after template removals. Otherwise, I leave this in your capable hands. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 06:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

Bishonen, re this, this, and this edit. The reason is Mandruss's comment about the article size. I haven't looked at any cites, and especially the ones with multiple cites, yet—that will take more time, and I don't know whether removing navboxes will make much of a difference. I don't see a necessity for the quotes, numerous of them lengthy and at least one of them with a Wikilink to another article. Personally, if I have any doubts that any given text is verified by the cited source(s), I'll read the source and not just an excerpt that may have been cited out of context. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Navboxes do contribute a lot to PEIS, generally speaking. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I thought the quotes were helpful for the reader, Space4Time3Continuum2x . But I'm not married to them, I mostly didn't like it that you removed stuff without giving a reason. Bishonen | tålk 19:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC).
Much as I like them, I support removing quotes and locs. There are more. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
My bad, didn't consider that not everybody reads the Talk page on a regular basis. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Deleting unnecessary paragraphs

The body of this article is far too long for any reader to navigate and it needs to be trimmed substantially. Trump has been president again for less than a year and it's already dozens of paragraph in the body. Meanwhile, many actions from his first presidency are rarely discussed today because they were never notable to begin with. I just removed a few paragraphs to start with, but many more need to go. Bill Williams 19:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I just deleted a few hundred words from Trump's second presidency section. Trump's second presidency has been less than a year and it's still almost 2,600 words and almost 19,000 characters in the body, not including sources/citations. Meanwhile, Obama's entire 8 year presidency has only a bit over 7,000 words and 46,000 characters in his article, not including sources/citations. Bill Williams 20:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
People have a lot more to complain about Trump haha. (hopefully my comment here isn't deleted since its definitely true). Dark Dreaming (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Do I detect whitewashing? Did my 3RR, so my hands are tied for the next 24 hours. If Obama had taking a wrecking ball to federal institutions and agencies and hijacked the legislature, his article would probably be much longer, too. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

access-date

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, regarding your edit, the last word on access-date was remove them. I can go either way, but thought under the circumstances removing a citation parameter might help the PEIS limit. I'm not one to argue with Nikkimaria. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I missed that discussion. I know it's optional but I, for one, have found it helpful many times when trying to figure out who did what when and why. At one time, we (and that includes Mandruss) removed the white space before | to save some bytes. Space4TCatHerder🖖 22:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I was still writing this response to a now-deleted comment.
Yeah, I missed that one, too. Just looked at my edit history for February 21. That was the day someone posted undeclared AI-generated "critiques" on a dozen Talk pages, including this one. Maybe someone added it as a cite because its title says "demagogue". Tim Weiner's book review in the Washington Post called it "a brilliant dissertation on Trump's patented brand of balderdash". I missed the review, too, and didn't read the book. Not sure if it's worth reading it now with a view of adding a cite; Trump added a whole new level of demagoguery to his balderdash since it was written. I reinserted the "Further reading" section and, instead of listing individual books, added the Wikilinks to Bibliography of Donald Trump. I removed the "Books" Wikilink and section from the bottom navbox. It only mentioned books credited to Trump; now we have links to books by and about him. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Looks nice. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
At one time, we (and that includes Mandruss) removed the white space before Sorry, eight days late. I have never removed anything to save some bytes. The bytes consumed by those spaces are insignificant because they have no effect on readers. I also don't think I ever preferred the no-space format. I did acquiesce to one or two mass removals of those spaces because it didn't seem worth a discussion at that point. Now the spacing is in "Internal consistency". ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

PEIS updates

The "magic number" is now 46, up from 34. That's some progress that gets us out of "Condition Two". If it stopped there, we would be back to Condition Two within a month. I suggest something more lasting, such as, say, summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"Magic number" is now 61. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Trump travel ban

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the lead, it is mentioned that During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, would it be appropriate to include a note here that tells which countries exactly were affected by this? Chtosajn Ibn Zahri (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't even list the countries in the body. The Immigration section contains:

In January 2017, Trump signed an executive order that denied entry to citizens from six Muslim-majority countries for four months and from Syria indefinitely.

and the second link provides easy access to an article providing that additional detail. This article is a Trump biography, not mainly an account of his presidencies. See WP:TRUMPOTA for information about other Trump-related Wikipedia articles.
Even if the body listed the countries, that would be too much detail for the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 02:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing Mention of Authoritarian and Democratic Backsliding from Lead

Latest comment: 6 months ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Valjean, Mandruss: The content that I am proposing to remove has been there for less than six months: "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding." Simply being in the lead since May does not mean it belongs there, however, because it's two sentences in the body. If every two sentences in the body became one sentence in the lead, we'd have a lead that's thousands of sentences. Furthermore, "have been described" are blatant MOS:WEASEL, i.e. weasel words; most reliable sources do not claim that Trump has been authoritarian or contributed to democratic backsliding. Reliable sources occasionally cite left-wing academics who make this claim, but reliable sources themselves do not make this claim .

The lead also already includes a length sentence that specifically mentions which of his second-term policies have been challenged: "His administration's actions—including targeting of political opponents and civil society, actions against transgender people, deportations of immigrants, and extensive use of executive orders—have drawn over 300 lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions." It makes no sense to add a second, much more controversial sentence, filled with weasel words and lacking in the body. Bill Williams 03:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it's only been there since May is because it is now becoming a problem. It was not as much of a problem during his first administration. Trump's emboldened and clearly authoritarian actions deserve mention in the body and the lead. They are mentioned several places in the body and deserve the short mention in the lead. The new administration's additional "authoritarian" characteristics deserve such updating of the lead. I'm sure that it could be enlarged in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
If you are "sure that it could be enlarged in the body" then do that. You're currently violating WP:SUMMARY by putting a sentence in the lead for two sentences in the body. The "several places in the body" never say "authoritarian" or "democratic backsliding," they refer to specific actions. Bill Williams 04:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

What was the consensus on this? GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

GoodDay- As far as I'm aware, there is no consensus that determined this should be included. It was added in May and never had more than two sentences to back it in the body. As I told Valjean, if it belongs in the lead, then it must be expanded in the body. But it shouldn't be expanded in the body because we already give qualified examples of how Trump is accused of encroaching on checks and balances; we can't explain any nuance with one sentence in the lead. Bill Williams 06:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • "Longstanding" in an article (subject to current events) such as this one is 4–6 weeks, which for my part I have been interpreting as six weeks, to be on the safe side. Bold additions to the lead are no different than bold additions to the body: they only need to be discussed when challenged before the 4–6 weeks are up. If you remove longstanding content, that's a bold edit, and if it's challenged, you need to take it to the Talk page. "Two sentences in the body" — so if the body adheres to consensus #37 (limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy), these things can't ever be mentioned in the lead? "several places in the body" never say "authoritarian" or "democratic backsliding," — the lead summarizes the body, not necessarily using the exact same words. Are you saying that those terms are not supported by the body? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    • I just counted six mentions of "authoritarian" and a number of RS that use that word in their titles alone. I count two places that mention "democratic backsliding". They are important enough topics and characteristics of his second administrations to be worthy of mention.
I have hatted my explanation for the relevance of that content. This is why RS mention authoritarianism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not confortable with changes being made, per an editor's personal opinons. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
GoodDay, your indent seems to indicate you are talking to me, so I am replying.
You are correct to feel such discomfort. We document what RS say, and when an editor (not me) removes content because they have complained about too much negative content about Trump, we tend to push back. That is not a legitimate reason for removing that properly-sourced negative content.
(As for my hatted observations, they tend to violate NOTFORUM, so I hatted them. They are not the reasons for my edits. They are the reasons for why RS say what they say, and we document that. Removal of such content damages Wikipedia and skews are coverage of actual, very significant, events.)
I hope that addresses your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the content can be considered longstanding and that the lead can summarize the body without directly quoting it. My point is that the terms "authoritarian" and "democratic backsliding" are major accusations that require direct quotes, not paraphrasing. This is not the same as saying that Trump's actions were "found to be illegal" vs. "struck down" or something that's clearly synonymous. The term authoritarian in particular is charged and requires significant backing in the body. Also, I stand by what I said: only two sentences say Trump's actions in his second presidency are "authoritarian" or "democratic backsliding." The other mentions of "authoritarian" do not relate to his second presidency, except a third sentence that says "...mirroring actions by authoritarian leaders to censor political opponents." So again, only two sentences call his overall actions authoritarian, and a third sentence calls specific actions authoritarian. Two sentences in the body for "democratic backsliding" and two to three sentences in the body for "authoritarian" is not even close to enough for this to be mentioned in the lead. Bill Williams 22:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Bill is clearly correct. However, this sentence is simply a symptom of the broader issues across the article. Perhaps the lead can be addressed once the body has been appropriately truncated. Riposte97 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
have been described as says that this is not WP's voice speaking but the hundreds of legal experts and political scientists mentioned in the body, with reliable sources. A couple of other sources: [Bright Line Watch], "which surveys the public and political scientists on the state of American democracy", [CNN], and those radical far-left [lunatics at the New York Times Editorial Board]. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
You can find tens of thousands of articles on just the second Trump presidency. That doesn't make everything that everyone talks about noteworthy enough to include in this Wikipedia article. Again, if you think this merits inclusion, then it needs to be expanded significantly in the body to be in the lead. But it shouldn't be expanded further in the body because it's not notable enough. Bill Williams 13:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
because it's not notable enough — well, that's your opinion, and other editors (the one who added the sentence to the lead in May and those who read the lead since then) apparently disagree. It would help your case if you could cite a reliable source or two saying that democratic norms in the U.S. have improved or not declined since Trump's inauguration. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history." factually incorrect - per the popular vote, this would be proven untrue Sallymae12345 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you get that? Populsr vote and effectiveness at the job are separate things.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
The key words are "scholars and historians". As for where this consensus comes from, see Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Kernelblitz(| Contribs) 20:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump Warning about Finance

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Donald Trump has made several comments hinting at financial trouble ahead, but most people don’t catch the deeper meaning behind them.

Experts say these warnings may point to economic patterns that aren’t widely discussed in mainstream news.

You can Check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZDpfjQoOcA

~2025-35784-83 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35784-83: Please don't use talk pages to promote your fringe theories. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Ostensibly agreed to releasing the Epstein Files

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Original heading: "The section on Trump's relationship with Epstein needs to be updated" ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 08:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

As of now, the Trump administration has ostensibly agreed to releasing the Epstein Files. That should be reflected in the article. NesserWiki (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies, at least until the administration releases the files. Trump's signing the bill into law started a 30-day clock for the release of all unclassified material. The DOJ decides what's classified. Also, on Trump's order the DOJ started "an investigation into prominent Democrats' ties to Epstein", so they can withhold material whose release they deem "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution". Forgot to sign at 14:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC). Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
When they release all of them, we might need to take heed, untill then no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
As stated above, we should wait until they are released as right now it's just a mention. Once they are officially released it will be more worthy of noting in this article. 🥑GUACPOCALYPSE🥑 17:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2025

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

there is false information ENERGY67MAN (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

More context would be helpful. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2025

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Non-starter. Better to use WP:COMMONNAME. See also consensus 12. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 23:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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 Trump → Donald John TrumpDonald John Trump – Better to use full name. ~2025-37767-14 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 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.

"King" and "Killer"

Latest comment: 6 months ago18 comments10 people in discussion
I am involved and closing against my own position. With ten respondents, discarding two votes-without-argument, a compelling (75%) majority support removal of this sentence. What appear to be policy-based arguments have been made without citing (linking to) the specific parts of the relevant policy pages; therefore I cannot assess consensus on a policy basis, and am "closing with the numbers". The sentence has already been removed in this edit.
Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

There is a line in Early life and education:

“His father told him repeatedly that he was ‘a king’ and to be ‘a killer’.”

I do not see how this sentence is necessary info for an encyclopedia article and not intended to make some contemporary political implication. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, by all means. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Define "necessary". You could make the same argument about anything negative in this article. The sentence is reliably sourced and relevant to a biography of the man. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
You could write many thousands of pages of content about Trump that is reliably sourced. By necessary I mean in order to summarize his life for an encyclopedia article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
His life could be summarized without it, and was for a number of years. His life is summarized better with it. I.e., it was an improvement. I welcome and support anything of that nature, whether negative or positive. Feel free to boldly add something positive with sourcing. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 19:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Trump's father telling Trump "you are a killer, you are a king" is based on what one of Trump's classmates at New York Military Academy told Harry Hurt III. Other journalists cited Hurt's book. How is that not one of the minute or minor details with "little coverage" so popular with the "must be trimmed" and "there's a child article" regulars on this talk page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you supporting or opposing? I can't tell. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
It's irrelevant and should be removed. As Bzweebl noted, this isn't something that multiple reliable sources claim is a notable part of Trump's life. It's hearsay where Trump supposedly told someone who told someone else who then told the public in a book that few other sources cite. Bill Williams 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree in principle. I have always relaxed the principle for early-life material because it's so hard to find. If the hearsay is a problem, it can be reworded with some kind of attribution. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Mandruss; I understand what you're saying, but we shouldn't be including hearsay in any form (whether properly attributed or not) unless it's widely cited by reliable sources. But this particular account is in a niche source and therefore not WP:DUE. Bill Williams 19:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Remove this. Complete waste of space. R. G. Checkers talk 07:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Remove. No evidence that this is in any way notable whatsoever, neither is the relevance evident from the way the information is textually presented. It just reads weird, awkwardly biased and absolutely unencyclopedic. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Remove. Per comment from Maxeto0910. Not notable. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Space4T has the right source from Hurt. No reason to remove this unless it's replaced with another sentence that explains Fred Trump's parenting style. "Remove" is a slippery slope to meaningless if we allow that everybody's pet peeve should be deleted. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
I support removal of this one. The source is Trump via his classmate. I don't particularly care whether it's true or not—by all accounts, Trump père was an ogre—but putting it in an encyclopedia bio seems a tad like psychoanalyzing, as in using a terrible childhood as a mitigating circumstance in court. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The Goldwater rule doesn't rule out factual history. I'd rather see it on the page than carry it around in my head. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Remove it. Trivial bit, questionable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 8 December 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.

Bulking down the article: Currently over 410 388Kb in size

Latest comment: 6 months ago116 comments28 people in discussion

Updated to reflect size as of today. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. There are separate subheadings that appear to be amenable to being moved in a reasonable way to their main sibling articles or to have a page split for new sibling articles. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I am against any new articles; this is not Trumpoedia. But, yes, where we have articles already (such as about his presidency) the material beyond a few lines should be there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I am against any new articles what are you going to do then when more important information about him or that his administration does inevitably comes out? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Put it in one of the many we already have about his presidencies, his crimes, His businesses, his bans, his wives, and god knows what else, we already have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Well yeah, if there's room, but wouldn't these articles get too big eventually? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. It's called summary style. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm seeing much sense in what Slatersteven is saying; there's lots of Wikipedia articles to propose as better places to keep many of the details in the main Trump article. It might be useful for editors to start to make suggestions on which sections to start to trim as the best way of making the main article for Trump more readable for the benefit of readers; requiring readers to spend 50-60 minutes in order to read a 410Kb article seems an excessive requirement. Which sections should be shortened as suggested by Slatersteven? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The presidential ones. I have already created a subsection here about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
As in both the first presidency and the second presidency? And do you mean that the subsection you created can be reallocated to a sibling article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
This exact discussion keeps coming up consistently. Most of the work to trim the article needs to happen in the presidency sections. It would not be improper to significantly trim either section. Elizabeth II reigned for seventy years, yet her article is very sparse. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm supporting the comments from both ElijahPepe and Slatersteven above that starting to trim some of the sections, probably the presidential sections especially, is warranted at this time. It might be useful to start thinking about the size of the reduction which would be best by targeting something like a 1/3 reduction or a 1/2 reduction as providing the best benefit for the article. It might also be useful to see some thoughts about which paragraphs within those sections might be best to start off the trim process to reduce their very large size. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Might be an idea to just copy and paste the intros from the sub articles, and work from there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm needing to go along with you on this suggestion. If I'm reading you correctly then the First presidency section would be first in line, and its first multiple paragraph section there is on Domestic policy: could you perhaps suggest the replacement paragraph for it using your idea just stated above in order for others to have a look at the paragraph you would suggest for that subsection's replacement? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, focusing on the presidential content is the only way to quickly and efficiently reduce the size. There should not be any presidency subsections here. Period. Just a short, summary style, section with a hatnote pointing to the actual article on the topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
There should not be any presidency subsections here. Period. That's extreme. His presidencies are what he will always be best known for, and an essential part of his biography. Yes, there are subarticles containing the same information and more. That doesn't mean we should eliminate all that from his bio. Just reduce what we have to summary style; I don't see a need to eliminate many of the existing subsections; they should merely be shorter subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Slatersteven: It looks like 2-3 editors (Elijah, Valjean, myself, etc) are supporting your suggestion for doing this; any chance that you might add here what your replacement text would be for the 1st presidency section in the Domestic policy subheading? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Elizabeth II and Trump: apples and oranges. The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy. British monarchs have ceremonial duties, not a political or legislative role; Elizabeth's article contains such earth-shattering facts as this one: In 1961, she toured Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Iran, rather than that she tried to dismantle British government agencies. Another big difference: her article has 321 refs instead of Trump's 814 as of today. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

1st presidency section

Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation. During his first term he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA.

This is all we need, we have an article to discuss the whys and wherefores. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Woof. I want reduction, but not that much reduction. I don't necessarily disagree with a single section for first term, but I think you could multiply that content by about ten and still call it summary style. All I care about is summary style and permanent freedom from PEIS issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 10:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Slatersteven about this; his principle is a valid one which states in general that Wikipedia does not need to duplicate material which already exists on well-maintained sibling articles. If you want to add a second sentence to his suggestion above, then you can go ahead and add it here for Slatersteven, Valjean and myself to look at. Slatersteven I assume can add a cite or two to his suggestion above, and I'm leaning to support him on this for inclusion in the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, if you say that some (all?) of the subarticles are parts of his biography, mere extensions/branches of this article that exist for technical reasons alone, I suppose that makes sense. That would break new ground for U.S. presidents. I like innovation and hate "because it's how things have always been done", but you would be on shaky ground that would probably fail an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The second sentence could serve to sum up much of Trump's adult life, including his first two marriages. We'd still have the pardons, though, which were extremely successfully implemented, and the relationship with Epstein which lasted longer than each of his first two marriages. Could we still mention the first term in the lead? According to another current thread on this Talk page, three sentences in the body may not make it leadworthy. Just asking aspirationally ... Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm still seeing the benefit of going with Slatersteven on his condesed version approach to the 1st presidency section; either one of you, or Slatersteven himself, could expand his short version above by adding another sentence or two. I'm thinking also that the lede is generally guided by the importance of issues rather than quantity of coverage included in the article for its subheadings. It seems that the rule of thumb that the 1st presidency does have its own hieghtened significance by the fact that it represents a 4-year presidency for the USA should still merit summary in the lede which I'd support. If you have a sentence or two to add to Slatersteven's suggested condensed version above then it would be useful to see it; he appears to have a good approach with multiple editors supporting. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
"Multiple editors": I counted a total of 13 participants in the three sections discussing the size, i.e. this section, "PEIS Condition Two - moderate urgency" (the urgency has passed, per "PEIS updates"), and "Size reduction efforts and WP:PRESERVE". Five of the participants support a mass deletion. That's neither a multitude nor a majority. The last times mass deletions such as the proposed one was discussed the consensus was "don't" — can't be bothered to root through the archives back around the time period from the election to the inauguration. I'm still a hard NO on mass deletions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
"Multiple editors" supporting Slatersteven edit: Elijah, Valjean, Deamonpen, Slatersteven, myself, Riposte97
Editors opposed: Space4Time, Mandruss.
You can still add a sentence or two and cites in the proposed edit which is supported by multiple editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see editors Deamonpen and "etc" involved in this discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
User Deamonpen sent me a message on my User page notification; you can ping him if needed. I've added Riposte97 to the support list of multiple editors who like Slatersteven's proposed edit; Mandruss is added to the opposes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
User Deamonpen sent me a message on my User page notification: I don't know what that means. They pinged you from some other Talk page? I don't see their username on your user talk page or yours on theirs. Either way, if they don't comment on THIS talk page, it doesn't count on this talk page. This is just curiosity on my part; it no longer matters since we now have an RfC. Space4TCatHerder🖖 23:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA."

So is anyone going to suggest any other additions? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

USA->U.S. per MOS:NOTUSA and local convention. Anyway, strong oppose such a brief summary of those four impactful years of Trump's life, per my previous comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Adding or deleting a sentence or two is an edit. What you're proposing is the mass deletion of eight years of work by an actual multitude of editors, including 200 reliable sources. That's the consensus version arrived at by a community broader than five editors out of 13. A mass deletion was proposed around the beginning of the year and rejected. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Eh…work and sources can always be reinstated if it's decided (somehow) that this article is lacking in detail. Essentially, you're making the tautological point that what is proposed to be deleted was added in the past. I support Slatersteven here. Riposte97 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Going from one extreme to the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
That is why we have a whole seperate article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Second presidency has a whole separate article. So you'll be reducing that part of the article to three sentences? If not, this argument falls flat. First term is not less important in this article than second term; that is recentist thinking. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I am certainly open to a longer entry in summary style, but unless you're willing to propose one Mandruss, I fear this process will get bogged down in the minutiae. For now I’m 'cut first', then see if the patient can survive a bit more detail later. Riposte97 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I won't be doing that. Not in my skill set. Surely there is an editor around who wants more content and is capable of writing it. One or two in particular come to mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I won't be doing that, either, just in case I was one of the one or two that came to mind. First of all, the section has already been pared down considerably since last year, and the article is now down to just under 389kB, so no longer critical. Secondly, there's a straight line from the first term (whether it's the climate change/green energy "hoax", health care, immigration, race/misogyny/diversity, pardons, conflicts of interest, etc.) to the second term (first term on steroids). E.g., sure, the then-longest government shutdown in Trump's first term is now the second-longest behind the one in Trump's second term, but does that make it irrelevant? When he's out of office we can say "the two longest government shutdowns in American history" (fingers crossed it ends at two). Thirdly, 'cut first', then see if the patient can survive a bit more detail later — I don't think that's how surgery works. If an editor thinks that certain content is more than summary-style or redundant/irrelevant/outdated/whatever, they should put it up for discussion. Or is that too much work minutiae? Also, per the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, I assume the lead's summary of the truncated first term section would be the second half of the second sentence of the first paragraph, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
No, essentially I am making this point:

what is being proposed is the reduction of the " First presidency (2017–2021)" section to three sentences. I have removed heading formats and the sources in the hatted version below. Please, also note that the editors proposing the mass reduction may not be aware of this change of heading levels I made yesterday. Reason: Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, denial of loss, and the Jan 6 attack on the Capital—which was the reason for the second impeachment—took place during Trump's first term.

and

Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm still seeing benefits in following Slatersteven's version and suggestions on this edit which is supported by multiple editors (six of the editors are listed above), with two isolated editors opposing. It looks like Slatersteven's edits should be supported for inclusion and brought into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Space, this is still far too long. Riposte97 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven: If both Mandruss and Space4T are indicating that they have no further additions, then the edit looks like the condensed edit as you presented it can be brought into the article. Current status is six supporting opinions to make the change over to the new condensed edit version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Consider my addition to be the current content of Donald Trump#First presidency (2017–2021). Six editors? Ernest Krause, Slatersteven, Valjean, ElijahPepe, Riposte97 — that's five, and Valjean and ElijahPepe haven't commented since Slatersteven made that mass-deletion suggestion. You need a bigger forum and more succinct titles than "Bulking down the article" or "1st presidency section" to announce to editors looking at this page that you are basically proposing to remove the entire first presidency section. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Provided you don't run afoul of WP:TALKHEADPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Replace, not remove. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
You're removing 99% of the content. That's kind of like replacing a person with the toes chopped off their left foot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Not really as the material is still on Wikipedia (and linked to on this page), just not on this page. So it's more like removing the toes from a shoe, but leaving the toes on the foot. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
<irony>Sure, let's make this biography a directory of the most important Trump subarticles. Just a little blurb for each is sufficient. Great idea.</irony> ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
How do you propose to put 24 "main" links and I don't know how many "further information", "see also", and inline links into three or even four or five or ten sentences? Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
We have 24 articles on his first presidency? Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
First presidency of Donald Trump, First 100 days of the first Trump presidency, Domestic policy of the first Trump administration, Economic policy of the first Trump administration, Environmental policy of the first Trump administration, Social policy of the first Trump administration, List of people granted executive clemency in the first Trump presidency, Immigration policy of the first Trump administration, etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with these changes, if you need a sixth person. However, I believe the best course of action for anything worth implementing is a proposed WP:TNT rewrite that has others actively contributing changes. In order to do that, we need a standard. Books are probably the most useful, though even reputable authors are susceptible to tangents, e.g. Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in The Divider. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with that. However, as I've said above, cut first. I’m not a pyromaniac; attempts at finding consensus for big rewrites inevitably cause disagreement, and give editors who want to keep everything space to block any change. That is how these proposals always die, and that is why I refuse to go down that path. Riposte97 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
@Riposte97: The question should be: Should the "First presidency" section be reduced to three sentences? If the answer is "no", status quo prevails until someone has a better proposal. Status quo is better than a mere three sentences. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Otherwise, this reform will never get through. We have six in favour, two opposed. I think @Slatersteven: should do the honours. Riposte97 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I think and RFC may be needed. Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I would support an RfC if the question is specific. An open "What should we do with the 'First presidency' section?" would not be productive because the discussion would go in five different directions at once. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure? I mean you have six editors supporting the placement of your edit. If you prefer you can likely place the edit which the 6 editors I have listed above are supporting, and then the minority of opposing editors can start Talk page or start an RfC if they feel a need to make a reasoned argument against the prevailing consensus. You are being supported by 6 editors to make your edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Who is the sixth editor in favor? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:TNT is an essay, and so is WP:NOTNT. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't cite it as policy. You are free to discuss it on either merit, but in this case, I firmly believe that the only option is to start fresh, given that some Trump literature is burgeoning. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"Multiple editors" supporting Slatersteven edit: Elijah, Valjean, Deamonpen, Slatersteven, myself, Riposte97

Editors opposed: Space4Time, Mandruss.

Reposting the list supporters for Slatersteven edits as requested by another editor. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Reduction of "First presidency"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clear not to implement the proposed change. No need for an uninvolved close. Riposte97 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The First presidency (2017–2021) section currently comprises 15 subsections and 4,000+ words. Should it be reduced to the following three sentences?

"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S." 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Yes - Per the reasoning in the discussion above. This change is necessary to permit a more holistic treatment of the subject. Besides, everything will be preserved on subarticles. --Riposte97 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No - This is far too drastic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Jack. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Jack. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 05:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No this would be too drastic for a lede, not to even mention the body 1brianm7 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've seen the full disclosure and stand by my previous comments. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • No - Such an imbalance between the "First presidency" and "Second presidency" sections would be a case of WP:RECENTISM and therefore WP:UNDUE. Besides, the sentence During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S. is particularly uninformative.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Jack and Gitz. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 17:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Still voting no after reading the full disclosure. Grover Cleveland, who also served two non-consecutive terms, has a long section for each of his presidencies. Reducing the section some might be necessary, but removing all except three sentences is way too drastic, even with a link to the full article about his first presidency. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 15:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • No per Gitz. A whole sentence highlighting Covid-19 and nothing else doesn't add up. Consider closing per WP:SNOW. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    Uninvolved SNOW closure welcome any time. If the general trend holds for a week, I'll do an involved closure. Sometimes it's a waste of time to go the traditional 30 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don't mind doing it... should I close the RfC section or this entire discussion under Bulking down the article: Currently over 410 388Kb in size? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    My preference? A more experienced editor. But please !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 21:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've been here around a year and a half... how much experience are you looking for? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
    We now have 23% Yes, too much for a SNOW close. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 04:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No. It's inadequate coverage for a presidential term that included the first withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the first reversal of policies and programs to reduce climate-changing emissions; a pandemic whose death toll was 400,000 by Trump's last day in office; children, including toddlers and babies, separated from their parents at the border and put in wire-mesh "compartments"; two impeachments; the refusal to acknowledge the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and attempts to overturn it, to name a few of the more memorable events in a part of Trump's life that affected the U.S. and the world. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think the selectivity says a lot. WP needs to cover all those things, which include unprecedented breaches of civic norms. But it simultaneously needs to cover his first administration’s achievements, some of which neither the cultists nor the haters even noticed because the media sucks at understanding long-term trends. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes it's not as if we do not have an article this very subject we can just link to. Nothing is going to be lost, it will still be on Wikipedia, just not cluttering up a page that is supposed to just be about his life. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No Further evidence of the "free beer or a fight" mentality of many Wikipedians, that compromise isn't an element of consensus. Further evidence that this article has suffered from the constant attention given by one or few editors with obviously entirely too much time on their hands. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes - On condition that the "second presidency (2025–present)" section's content is also trimmed. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No, wildly inadequate to summarize one of the most important parts of his life. Compare what's suggested here vs. the business career and media career sections, both of which also have their own main articles - it would be absurd to make his first presidency section shorter than those given the massive difference in significance. If we're going to target parts to reduce to a shorter summary for length, those (as less important parts of his life) are logical targets before the presidency section. Though this would be too short even for them, I would strenuously oppose any version of the article that makes his first presidency section shorter than either of those two sections. I'd also agree with the comment above that, at an absolute bare minimum, the first presidency section should not be shorter than the second presidency section. Logically it makes sense for it to be the longest section in the article right now, since his presidency as a whole is the most important part of his life and the first presidency currently covers four times as many years as the second one. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No - I oppose this change. Even if the article is very long, removing substantial content now would risk losing important context about a figure whose public life is unusually complex and widely documented. Cutting large parts from the section about his first presidency could create gaps that harm the balance of the biography. Ismeiri (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Three sentences is not enough to summarise his first presidency which is a notable part of his life.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No. Three sentences is fine for the lead, but this is the body we're talking about here. 3 sentences is far too short for this major part of his life. For example, Andrew Jackson, a featured article on a U.S. president, has around 4700 words for his two terms, giving an average of around 2350 words for each term. I support a reduction of the size of the first presidency section, but not down to 3 sentences. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes - As SS sates, nowt will be lost, but unnecessary duplication.Halbared (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes; Full support for Slatersteven’s position on this matter, who appears to be the only editor to get this unusual RfC fully correct. It appears to be a poor option for editors to want to reduplicate material in this already over-large and sprawling biography of Donald Trump when the material is already fully existing and fully maintained on the separate 300kB article for the First presidency of Donald Trump. For example, when Wikipedia editors find two articles which are identical in content or even nearly identical in content, then one of them is normally placed for AFD. The same principle seems to apply here for strongly supporting Slatersteven’s position. I’m also fully endorsing the position of Riposte97 who has stated that its best to follow Slatersteven’s position for trimming the main Trump article, and then selectively make small additions as needed ‘’after’’ the main biography is trimmed. In theory, the first sentence of this unusual RfC should state that “The already existing 300Kb article for the First presidency of Donald Trump is not affected at all by trimming the already very large current version of the Donald Trump article.” Why reduplicate material which is already fully being maintained on Wikipedia at the article for First presidency of Donald Trump. I’m in full agreement with and supporting the position of both Slatersteven and Riposte97 for trimming the main Donald Trump biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No Never in favor of reducing reliably-sourced and important coverage to satisfy some boomer-like notion of page-is-too-long. Zaathras (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No. WP:SUMMARY does not say "your summary shalt not be more than three sentences long, nor shalt said sentences be anything other than incredibly vague". Looking at the actual examples it gives may be helpful here.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
    Your Biblical phrasing made me laugh, I'll tell you that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Reduced, yes; to three sentences, no. Also, if you want the page size as measured in the history tab to be reduced, please replace a couple hundred newspaper articles/single-use sources with a couple of {{cite book}} instances. That will have a dramatic effect on the page size. Just for visible text, the article content is running about 10 characters in text for every 15 characters in references. The ratio is even more dramatic when you compare readable prose size against the wikitext for the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) per Jack and Gitz. Way too much of a trim. TarnishedPathtalk 22:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) This section could benefit from some cutting back (probably starting with cutting Domestic Policy back and folding other sections into it). The article for the first presidency is 300 kB, while the lead is 766 words. I don't think this, or any other single paragraph, can provide an adequate summary. CamAnders (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    What size are you suggesting as the best option. If reduplicating the full 300Kb article is too much and 766 words is too small, then how much of the full 300Kb article for the first presidency are you suggesting should be copied here? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    Nothing should be copied here. This article should use summary style. To copy something is not to summarize it. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    Hi CamAnders; Another editor just below you, Bill Williams, seems to have a very similar idea to yours; are the parameters he seems to be setting up look like what you are suggesting? Then maybe you could add a comment or two under his statement right below yours. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think we should necessarily have a numerical size target that we're aiming for. Instead we should aim to accurately summarize his first term for readers with a general interest in Trump, using as much space as needed. Given the significance of that part of his life, three sentences is not enough. The current text has the opposite problem, giving more a blow-by-blow account than a general reader needs. The ideal size is something we'll need to discover by editing rather than proscribe in an RfC CamAnders (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • No the first presidency section must be trimmed significantly, with at most five subsections and 1000 words. However, these three sentences are poorly written and do not explain his first presidency enough. I will propose separate RfCs to remove some unnecessary content, since this is not the right approach. Bill Williams 20:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Bill Williams; Your suggestion sounds alot like Slatersteven and Riposte97 in the above discussion who voted "Yes" but left it open to adding material and sentences as needed to a trimmed version of this subsection. Maybe that's similar to your comment. If you feel that a new RfC might state the case better, then it looks like multiple editors of both "Yes" and "No" might be ready to go along with you to replace this RfC. Ping me if you need support. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    ErnestKrause; I would recommend an RfC to cut specific sentences in the first presidency section (you can even cut most sentences), rather than cutting almost everything. You can always debate cutting more in the future. Bill Williams 03:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Bill Williams; Your previous comments seemed to say that you might be ready to close this unusual RfC and perhaps replace it with one resembling your RfC about the second presidency below which is going fairly well. Maybe you could do something like that here to replace this poor RfC as soon as possible. Ping me if I can support you; many editors in this RfC have already commented about the shortcomings of this unusual RfC. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. As of today this article's size is 386,7 KB/12,779 words, and it's down 24 KB from the 410 KB it had three weeks ago when it was approaching critical. (FWIW, Barack Obama's is 394.1 KB/12,993 words.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. The article is still sprawling and oversized at about 390Kb. Its huge size makes it unfortable for new readers to even try to read the article from top to bottom. It still takes 50-60 minutes to try to read from top to bottom which is very unseemly for most readers appraching this sprawling and oversized article. Anything approach 400Kb is just much too large for most readers to deal with in a practical sense. The size of the article needs more reduction. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 3 December 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.

Request for other editors' input

Superseded by RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 22:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

Precedural Note: This section appears to be procedurally incorrect and redundant to the section directly above it as noted in the Talk discussion placed below this edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Should the Donald Trump#First presidency (2017–2021) section, including its subsections, be replaced by the following sentences?
Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation. During his first term he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the USA.
Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be redundant and procedurally incorrect. All the participating editors have just spent an entire week discussing this very issue above. If you have an argument then just add it to the discuss already in process for a full week. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 24 November 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2025

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change: During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, expanded the Mexico–United States border wall, and enforced a family separation policy on the border. He rolled back environmental and business regulations, signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and appointed three Supreme Court justices. In foreign policy, Trump withdrew the U.S. from agreements on climate, trade, and Iran's nuclear program, and initiated a trade war with China. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020, he downplayed its severity, contradicted health officials, and signed the CARES Act. After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump attempted to overturn the result, culminating in the January 6 Capitol attack in 2021. He was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and in 2021 for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him both times.

In 2023, Trump was found liable in civil cases for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud. He was found guilty of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. After winning the 2024 presidential election against then-vice president Kamala Harris, he was sentenced to a discharge, and two felony indictments against him for retention of classified documents and obstruction of the 2020 election were dismissed without prejudice.

Trump began his second presidency by initiating mass layoffs of federal workers. He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries at the highest level since the Great Depression and signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. His administration's actions—including targeting of political opponents and civil society, restrictions on transgender rights, deportations of immigrants, and extensive use of executive orders—have drawn over 300 lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions.

Since 2015, Trump's leadership style and political agenda—often referred to as Trumpism—have reshaped the Republican Party's identity. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic, and he has made false or misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history.



Change to: During the 2016 primary, Trump defeated his Republican rivals to win the party's nomination. He went on to defeat the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the general election by winning a majority of Electoral College votes. He used unconventional methods to communicate his priorities. Notably, his use of the social media platform "Twitter" (now "X") as a primary mechanism for direct communication with the American public, other politicians, and the press corps. He ran on the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” Which the media dubbed anyone backing him "MAGA-right."

As president, he signed a major tax reform bill into law and oversaw a reduction of federal regulations. His protectionist trade policies included tariffs in foreign aluminum, steel, and other products. His administration also renegotiated trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, and South Korea. Other domestic priorities included Supreme Court and federal judiciary appointments, increased military budgets, aggressive border and immigration control, criminal justice reform, and the reduction of prescription drug prices.

In foreign policy, the Trump administration moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and brokered normalization agreements between Israel and a number of countries. In 2018, President Trump attended a summit with Kim Jong Un, marking the first time a sitting president met with a North Korean leader.

In 2018, there was a partial government shutdown as Trump disagreed with Congress over funding for a border wall between the United States and Mexico. The funding lapse lasted thirty-five days before it was resolved.

In 2019, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump based upon allegations of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. In 2020, the Senate acquitted Trump on both articles of impeachment. The remainder of Trump’s presidency was consumed with the coronavirus pandemic.

His 2020 reelection bid initially appeared promising. However, the record number of Americans who voted early or by mail-in ballots due to the pandemic, counting of those votes continued for days. After the fourth day, Biden was declared the winner. The vote was certified by the Electoral College on December 14, and later by Congress. Voter turnout rate in the 2020 election was proclaimed the highest in over a century. While Biden received the most votes in U.S. presidential history, Trump received the second-most.

2024 saw Trump become the second American president elected to two non-consecutive terms, beating then Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump started his second presidency abruptly fulfilling campaign promises and instituting strict immigration policy. His foreign policy "America First,” has altered the U.S approach to alliances, trade, and global engagement. How these actions in U.S. leadership shape the future, are still to be determined. ~2025-40546-23 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. - Response per consensus 74. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 17:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: deleting sentences from second presidency section

Latest comment: 5 months ago71 comments21 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's been several days since the last !vote, and there is a very clear consensus to remove the material in question. There isn't much likelihood in further discussion swinging this dramatically, so I think an early closure is reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

(When viewing this article in source editing) the second presidency section is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters.

Should we keep or remove the following 3,123 words and 20,513 characters of sentences (including headings and ellipses) under "Content Proposed to Be Deleted"? Any sentences prior or following the removed sentences would be slightly edited for grammar and clarity to account for the removal. Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97, SusanLesch, Bishonen, Dark Dreaming. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Methinks, this violates both WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Also, see overuse note. Space4TCatHerder🖖 23:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
You need to specify how any of those policies apply, rather than making a bunch of criticisms with no explanation. The RfC is brief and neutral. I explained it in a few sentences, and I proposed to remove a lot of content because every discussion about removing individual sentences goes nowhere, even though editors overall agree that every section of this article must be trimmed. Do you want me to cite discussions for the claim that editors agree on this, even though you've been in these discussions dozens of times? Bill Williams 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
@Bill Williams: Neutrality aside, it is in no way brief: the statement (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) comes out as more than 21 thousand bytes, which is far too long for Legobot to handle, and so this RfC is not showing properly at either WP:RFC/POL or WP:RFC/BIO. Please supply a much shorter statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I JUSTFIXedIT. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
A statement that there was an "overwhelming" agreement isn't neutral, it's your opinion and should include the links to those discussions. You pinged only nine editors which doesn't say "overwhelming participation" in previous discussions. The main objection against previous attempts wasn't what to cut but how to go about it, i.e., mass deletion versus individual trimmings based on the individual text. This proposal also doesn't involve an individual evaluation of the text to be cut. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I only pinged editors in the most recent discussion. There has been overwhelming participation in dozens of discussions on cutting the article, and editors overwhelmingly agree that the article must be cut. I deleted the term "overwhelming" from the RfC so there isn't a concern about neutrality, and feel free to ping/link additional discussions on cutting in the past if you feel that is necessary. Bill Williams 15:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
So instead of editors in numerous discussions hav[ing] overwhelmingly agreed, this RfC is actually based on this one discussion in which three editors out of eight agreed? Seems a tad misleading to me. (It's unclear to me what DarkDreaming's position is.) At least, I assume that's the discussion you're referring to because it's the only one with comments by both Bishonen and DarkDreaming that I could find. Wikipedia:Writing_requests_for_comment#Brief explains that the RfC question can include links to other discussions or other pages, but the topic of discussion and the question being asked should be understandable without them. Is it? And when you cite numerous discussions, you need to provide the links to support your argument(s). Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
As of today this article's size is 386.7 KB/12,779 words, and it's down 24 KB from the 410 KB it had three weeks ago when it was approaching critical. (FWIW, Barack Obama's is 394.1 KB/12,993 words.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Space, this all strikes me as wikilawyering. What is your position on the proposal itself? Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, Space4T isn't even accurately "wikilawyering." As you can tell by the votes thusfar in the RfC, most editors have thought about this before and determined that the article is too long. We've had dozens of discussions about it for the past 6+ years that I've been here, and every time a majority of editors say that we need to trim the article, but disagree on what. The second presidency section is now longer than the first presidency section that editors have complained about the length for years; there is no serious argument that it needs to be cut down. Bill Williams 03:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:V also apply to claims made on the talk page? I would think that linking to previous discussions you cite for your claim (Editors in numerous discussions have agreed) is a matter of courtesy towards other editors, especially in RfCs summoning editors who have not been watching the article and this talk page regularly. Other editors, e.g. in this discussion and others, have disagreed. The two problems I pointed out in my first comment were fixed - Mandruss fixed the format, and you removed the word "overwhelming" in the opening statement. You're still claiming overwhelming support - fine, your opinion, but don't accuse me of wikilawyering and inaccurate wikilawyering. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Bill Williams and Riposte97 are referring to the general reduction of the article size similar to what took place last January 2025 with the support of several editors, which resulted in successfully reducing the article from about 411Kb down to about 337Kb in February 2025 here: . If you need an exact count of how many editors were supporting there and how many were opposing, then you might make an exact tally which was sufficient to create a consensus to do the general reduction done at that time. Bill Williams currently appears to be receiving good support from several editors to keep up his efforts in trying to reduce the size of this sprawling and over-large article. Your comment on the highly divided discussion about reducing the size of the Political practice section from several months ago can also be re-addressed by Bill Williams here when the time comes. Currently at about 390Kb in size, the current Trump biography appears to be sprawling and bloated beyond what is needed for general readers of the article who link to it from Google looking for a reasonably sized article about Trump; the 390Kb current version of the biography misses the mark here and is sprawling and over-large, requiring a good deal of trimming. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
@Bill Williams, thank you for having the courtesy to ping members of the previous discussion in your RfC. It would be unrealistic for you to dig through the archives of every previous discussion about trimming Trump's page over the last 6 years and pinging all of those editors. Editors who are actively involved in Trump's page keep an eye on RfCs and should have this talk page on their Watchlist. At some point, we have to put the onus on the editors to be active and engaged on Trump's page if they want to have a say in timely changes. Penguino35 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x; You've been involved in multiple discussions where most editors agreed that we need to trim. Discussion in Jan/Feb 2025, where four editors agreed that the article needs to be trimmed and none disagreed with that overall need; you were in the discussion but didn't comment on the overall need. Discussion in Aug/Sep 2023 where 11 editors agreed to trim and six said we should not trim; some other editors, including you, were in the discussion but did not comment on the overall need to trim and instead commented on issues with the specific discussion. I came across plenty of other discussions where a majority editors stated the need to trim the article, but the discussions were not focused on that issue. Either way, I agree that we can resolve any issue of neutrality by removing the mention of the need to trim the article from the RfC proposal, which I'm doing now. Bill Williams 21:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Bill Williams, this was a bad RfC from the start. You have now edited the first paragraph of your RfC announcement for the third time without indicating the changes per WP:REDACT after editors have responded. First version: Editors in numerous discussions have overwhelmingly agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. Second version: Editors in numerous discussions have agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. Third version: (When viewing this article in source editing) the second presidency section is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters. And it finally dawned on me that there's something wrong with your stats. According to today's article info, the entire article is 386,212 bytes. It's prose is 83,294 bytes, 83,108 characters, and 12,769 words. Donald Trump#Second presidency (2025–present is 68,231 bytes; its prose is 14,688 bytes, 14,674 characters, and 2,140 words. The content you propose to delete is 20,544 bytes; its prose is 1,582 bytes, 1,577 characters, and 255 words. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Full support for Bill Williams's original take on helping to make the Trump biography article more readable; requiring readers to spend 50-60 minutes to read this sprawling and over-long biography of Trump from top to bottom is bad news for readers. Trimming the article should be a high priority for responsible editors, and Bill Williams has a good approach here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The vast majority of editors in this discussion agree that it's a valid RfC. I edited the RfC introduction because you keep claiming it's a bad RfC, and that doesn't change any of the previous votes because they already agreed or disagreed with you. It just ensures that you can't complain about future votes being biased by the RfC intro. Also, I never said anything about the number of words or characters that are prose. I literally said "when viewing this article in source editing," i.e. the number of words and characters includes the sources that are cited. There's nothing misleading about that. And if you want to show that the RfC intro has been edited, feel free to add a strikethrough comparing the initial intro to the current intro. Bill Williams 19:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
?? You copied the source file into Word or Pages or whatever and used their word count, i.e, <ref>{{cite news = three words in Pages? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the tone of "??" and "whatever." I told you exactly what I did, and I said that at the beginning of the RfC. If you want the RfC to be more clear then you can simply strike through the mentions of words and characters from the intro. You're making points that are irrelevant to the RfC, which is to delete unnecessary content in an article that is filled with unnecessary content. The specific measure of the amount of content is not the main focus of this RfC, so you're shadowboxing right now. Bill Williams 06:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Survey: deleting sentences from second presidency section

  • Remove. Please look through the existing second presidency section before voting in this RfC. You can quickly see that all of the sentences that I'm proposing to remove are either redundant to other sentences in the body, or are trivial because this is Trump's personal article and therefore must cover the most important information across his entire lifetime. If reliable sources barely covered a topic, or stopped talking about a topic months ago, then it is violating WP:NOTNEWS to include it in Trump's personal article. Almost all of these sentences are already in the Second presidency of Donald Trump article, and belong there rather than in this article. Many of these sentences also violate WP:OR by linking to articles, documents, or surveys that nearly no other sources have cited. If you vote to "keep" the content, you need to provide a compelling argument for why most of it is essential to Trump's personal biography, and explain how it is not redundant to other content that is already in this article. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad-RFC (Summoned by bot): There is another RFC that overlaps with this at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Reduction_of_"First_presidency". That should be allowed to run prior to running an overlapping RFCs. TarnishedPathtalk 23:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
    @TarnishedPath, please read the proposal carefully. The RfC you refer to relates to a different section. Riposte97 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    The primary argument in favor of this and the prior RFC is that this article is approaching the technical limits and will break if it becomes much larger. Should the prior RFC succeed, those concerns would be mollified, and should it fail, those concerns would be maintained. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    TarnishedPath, 1brianm7; as I said in the RfC, an overwhelming share of editors agree that every single section of this article is too long. The RfC on cutting the first presidential section has nothing to do with this RfC, because they are two separate sections, and both need to be trimmed. Bill Williams 03:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove per Bill. This stuff is all clutter and dead wood that can safely be cut before we have some real debates about what the section should look like long term. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove. This all looks unnecessary and so should be cut to reduce the size of the article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove - Such info can be placed in the Second presidency of Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove (summoned by bot) would place into the Second presidency of Donald Trump page. Thanks.Wuerzele (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is too sweeping; many of these contain key aspects that would not be properly summarized after removal. For instance:
    • Removing Four days into his second term, analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025 would mean that the article would contain no mentions of Project 2025 at all; that's not appropriately summarizing a key aspect of his presidency. It could be reworded or tweaked to use more sources or to cover a broader timeframe, but simply removing it isn't appropriate.
    • Likewise, the removal of the Some actions, such as attempts to dismantle... removes the key conclusion summary from that paragraph; it makes no sense to take that out. It can be updated as things change, but the section needs a conclusion.
    • And the His actions were described by the media as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign... sentence is a key summary of the reaction to his targeting; without something like that near the top of the section, we're not indicating why the other parts there are significant.
    • And Trump inherited a resilient economy from the Biden administration, with increasing economic growth, low unemployment, and declining inflation is the key context summary for domestic policy; no valid rationale has been presented here for removing it and it doesn't reflect anything else in the article - without that we wouldn't be providing any context for what things were like before his actions here. No other part of the article summarizes this aspect.
    • Like several of the above suggestions, the removal of the He promoted climate change denial and misinformation,[24] appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse climate regulations and pollution controls,[25] would leave no discussion of climate change in his second administration or of his promotion of climate change misinformation, which has received massive amounts of coverage.
    • The removal of the entire paragraph stating Dismantling government agencies enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud,[565] Trump reduced the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section from 30 to five lawyers,[566][567] dismissed 17 independent inspectors general at government agencies[568] and 12 members of independent oversight boards and watchdog agencies,[569] and disbanded the squad in the FBI's Washington field office that investigated allegations of fraud and corruption against government officials and members of Congress.[570][571] He pardoned or dropped charges against officials accused of corruption. would leave no coverage of that aspect, either, despite it being a major thread of coverage in the sources.
    • He sought to remake civil society to his preferences by executive order is, again, a key summary sentence - these are the sorts of sentences we should be retaining! These removals are taking out summaries.
    • Taking out The moves were described as ceding American global influence and creating a void filled by Russia and China would leave no mention of the way his foreign policy actions have benefited those nations (particularly Russia, which has received massive coverage; and China - the way his actions have benefitted China would no longer be mentioned anywhere in the article at all).
    • Taking out Economists argued that the administration misunderstood the relationship between trade deficits and tariffs... would remove the only expert summary of his tariff policy that we have.
    More generally, just looking at these, they feel one-sidedly selected; if the objection is to the article's length, we should focus on uncontroversial removals rather than key summary sentences like these. And many of these, since they are summaries, are not adequately covered elsewhere - they're often the only mention of the relevant aspects. Some aspects could be reworded, but this proposal loses key aspects of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    Aquillion; I responded to each of your points below.
    1. There has been little coverage of Project 2025 following Trump's inauguration. It's irrelevant with respect to Trump's entire life (this is his personal article) and reliable sources have given it minimal weight in the past 10 months.
    2. The paragraph in question shouldn't be an independent paragraph and therefore it doesn't need a conclusion. The single sentence on Elon Musk and DOGE can be part of the preceding paragraph. No reliable source is seriously arguing that Trump's actions towards the CFPB are one of the biggest parts of his second presidency. It belongs in his second presidency article but not his personal article.
    3. The preceding sentence says "during his second presidency, the Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target political opponents and civil society." There is zero need to redundantly add a sentence on "retribution" and "revenge," and "strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics" is a bold and unnecessary claim to make for one sentence in Trump's BLP.
    4. It's absurd and a complete violation of WP:NPOV to insert a sentence about how amazing the previous president's economy was into Trump's personal article. Each individual sentence regarding Trump's second presidency can state that unemployment rose, inflation rose, etc. under Trump, without having an intro sentence to praise up Biden.
    5. Add some relevant sentences on Trump cutting environmental regulations, which I agree belongs in the body. Reliable sources talk 99% about the regulations that Trump cuts, and 1% about "climate change denial and misinformation" or "appointed oil, gas, and chemical lobbyists to the [EPA]." You can add sentences on the 99%, I'm just proposing to remove the 1%.
    6. I agree that we can add one new sentence on Trump dismissing independent officials, and include Trump encroaching on independent agencies as part of that sentence. However, this existing paragraph focuses on issues that reliable sources barely cover, e.g. "enforcing the laws against political corruption and white-collar fraud," and disbanding some specific FBI field office, and reliable sources almost never connect the pardons of corrupt people to the dismissal of officials and the FBI field office.
    7. This sentence is completely redundant. Every other sentence in the paragraph says exactly why Trump took executive actions against DEI, universities etc.
    8. Giving some "expert analysis" of Trump's actions may have a place in his second presidency article, but absolutely not in his personal article. If we added expert analysis of everything Trump did during his first and second presidencies, then this article would double in size. We already say specifically which foreign policy actions that Trump took, and that is sufficient.
    9. Again, this has no place in Trump's personal article. We can't add "expert analysis" to every single economic-related action that Trump has taken. Should we also say that Trump misunderstands the relation between tariffs and inflation, between immigration and crime, etc? We'd double the size of the article.
    I appreciate that you individually responded to each sentence that I proposed to remove. I hope you understand my rebuttals as well. Bill Williams 15:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    Bill Williams, I'm having a hard time pairing the sections/sentences in "Content Proposed to be Deleted" with these numbered items. About #4: "absurd", "complete violation of WP:NPOV", "praise up Biden" — seems a bit overexcited for a fairly bland sentence when two of its cited sources (US News and the second NY Times cite) use the phrases "inheriting from President Joe Biden" and "inherit from President Biden", respectively. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
    The nine numbers correspond to each of the nine bulleted points that Aquillon made. As for the sentence on the economy, every president "inherits" the entire administration from the previous president; should we begin every single sentence in Trump's personal article with how Biden handled an issue? Immigration, trade, foreign policy, etc? No, because this is Trump's personal article and that would double the length of the page. The only reason the sentence on Biden was included is because editors want to fill this page with as many Democratic talking points as possible, hence why the page is way too long throughout. Also, during his entire four years, Biden had the highest inflation of any president in 50 years, but the sentence cherrypicks data to say inflation was "declining" even though it was still at high levels. Zero economists would argue that inflation was low at the end of his term, and this article doesn't need details that are irrelevant to Trump. Bill Williams 06:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
    The only reason the sentence on Biden was included is because editors want to fill this page with as many Democratic talking points as possible, hence why the page is way too long throughout. Ah, yes, kind of like I feel about the U.K. — ev'vybody driving on the wrong side of the road, except me, the steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car, and the only affordable rentals have a stick shift, on the wrong side of me. Never mind. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
"Never mind" is the correct attitude. Dozens of editors, not just me, agree that this article includes thousands of words on trivial issues to make Trump look bad. There are literally zero sentences on trivial issues to make Trump look good in this article, and that's how it should be. Bill Williams 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose, unless removal will ensure information is retained elsewhere, and the article is only shortened to comply with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If information is to be removed, the (sub)section it is currently in should link to the (sub)article where the information will be retained. I support splitting off parts of articles when the article gets too long, but not cutting in the content of an article just to shorten it. The information is relevant and a reader should be able to find it if they come to this page, although they may first need to read summaries in this page that prompt them to click through to more in-depth subject articles. Slomo666 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove per Bill. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove as Bill Williams appears to have this correctly addressed. Can something similar be suggested for the 1st presidency section as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    ErnestKrause; we can have an RfC on trimming the first presidency section in the future, but not until the current RfC ends. Most editors here agree that almost every section of this article is too long. Bill Williams 03:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    You appear to have multiple editors supporting you on this, and you might be able to move along more expeditiously than expected. I'm agreeing with you as to multiple sections being able to benefit from this effort to downsize this over-large article. The RfC currently running for the 1st presidency seems largely redundant at this time and can probably be closed in order not to be a drain on RfC resources, that is, taking up editors time for a result that should be superseded by the new RfC for the 1st presidency which you just mentioned. Full support for your moving ahead with this; just ping me for support as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove. Good job, Bill Williams. Everything I expected to find missing was said somewhere else. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss the content you propose to remove individually. Making a start here with Early actions, 2025–present. I just edited the section. I'll address the rest of the proposed deletions in the coming days. I've addressed the individual sentences/passages proposed for deletion in the hatted section. The green text is the content the RfC proposes to delete, the red text is my comment. The "Domestic policies" section has the current iteration of that section in the article, with green denoting content proposed for deletion, black denoting content not proposed for deletion, and my comment in red.
    The premise of the RfC is When viewing this article in source editing. We write articles to be read by the general public in the published format. What does it matter that the source word count is 10,462 when 8,000 of those words are ref, last, first, url, title, names of authors, dates of articles, etc, i.e, content the reader of the published content doesn't see? The RfC proposes to delete 255 words (12%) of the readable prose (see my sandbox3) from the current Second presidency (2025–present) section with a total of 2,140 words of readable prose (see my sandbox2). The size will be reduced by 30% (20,544 bytes of 68,231 bytes), indicating that we'll lose comparatively more valuable RS. As other editors have said, there's room for improvement — see my hatted comments following the individual texts sentences/passages proposed for deletion. The article has been "close to critical PEIS" continuously since 2019; it was at 437kB in 2021, 417kB in 2022 and 2023, and at 429kB in 2024. It's at 386kB now and not approaching critical.
    If, as the OP's !vote asserts, many of these sentences also violate WP:OR by linking to articles, documents, or surveys that nearly no other sources have cited, the OP (and/or the "per Bill", "looks unnecessary", "deadwood", etc. !voters) haven't pointed out the sentences in question instead of claiming OR violations. Considering the size of the article, why list more than one or two RS if they represent the majority view? Neither have the OP and the mentioned !voters pointed out the sentences whose reliable sources barely covered a topic, or stopped talking about a topic months ago. News media don't report on subjects when there is nothing new to report. Quoting another discussion: That doesn't mean those subjects don't belong in a biography.
Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove. Deadwood is an appropriate term (and the best programme).Halbared (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove and strongly disagree to handling each of these edits separately. On multiple discussions, that gets us nowhere. Bold edits like this will likely have to continue every few years as subject creep will undoubtedly settle in again and again. I also appreciate Bill Williams' bulleted rebuttal above that gives additional clarity on why this particular section was targeted. Nice work. Penguino35 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: After one week of this RfC, there appear to be 10 opinions to remove and 2 opinions to keep. This seems to be an aggregate opinion of stated positions, and it is not a vote, with 2 other editors citing concerns about the simultaneous RfC, which has since been closed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
    Don't worry about it. When all the RFCs are closed, we'll have a general consensus of something. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
    For the record: two keeps, one "conditional oppose" removal, two "bad RfC"s. Also, there's a lot of material to go through, and I, for one, haven't finished looking at all [the] clutter and dead wood, including 43 cited sources, that it took editors who are apparently much faster readers — or who have more time — than me only a few hours to go through. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep some of this material could do with better summarizing, but I just can't square the argument that the 2nd presidency of Donald Trump has any different concerns from Donald Trump's article. If readers go to the presidency article and look at the tariff section, they'd expect to find information about the effects of the tariffs. If readers go to the persons article and look at the tariff section... they'd expect to find information about the effects of the tariff. (technical concerns aside) This article has 12,769 words, that is longer than suggested, but exceptions are explicitly noted, and I'd be damned if Donald Trump wasn't an exception. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Good RfC as can be seen by the fact that the RfC the objectors compared to was closed with overwhelming no's, yet most people here think the opposite.
Also, remove, as the others stated, these can go in some of his many other articles. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: After two weeks of this RfC, there appear to be 11 opinions to remove and 3 opinions to keep. This seems to be an aggregate opinion of stated positions, and it is not a vote, with 2 other editors citing concerns about the simultaneous RfC, which has since been closed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Well, if it's so overwhelmingly !voted to remove, then does that justify either snow closing or regular closing as removing? Do you want to do that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Its basically running at about 4:1 in opinions collected up to this time; I'm likely to support any editor who would like to close it at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Can you do it yourself? I'd be happy to myself but I've already !voted so I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to do it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Five editors oppose removal. Additionally, two of them as well as a third one say that this is a bad RfC. It needs to be closed by an experienced uninvolved editor, preferably someone with experience in closing RfCs. Space4TCatHerder🖖 00:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Even if the RFC is "bad", it shouldn't be assessed vigorously. It is a suggestion, not an exam or coursework. People seem to be okay with the proposal based on how they are voting for it. I see a substantial amount of remove votes and comparatively few Keep votes. Plus, it's clear what the proposal wants to do - it's not like it's in hieroglyphics. Fantastic Mr. Fox 06:44, 16 December 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.
  1. ↑ In 2025, Pew Research found persons in a majority of countries (12 of 20 plus 4 ties) viewed China as the world's foremost economy.[39]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_205&oldid=1328031537"