Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 196#Infobox image caption

Nvidia's stock seems to be headed down the toilet after the latest Trump tariff announcements.[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-stock-drops-tech-leads-markets-lower-after-trump-backs-broader-reciprocal-tariffs-124741391.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACadGQBg1AUOvSlO0U6dF2ez1ZI6BrfkfQXM5Yr1Ovu4kdi7hbgCoaM-sDlq166ajhodoE1zbVyZlGmYF7CLe2gDngGvQti6t-Vq-s4GaFbytXa5OJTl8TiTiS9gW9obnJt11bDx7meSX3MHcW-HAoSqSTKxzmgKBRhod41irxC8]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-stock-drops-tech-leads-markets-lower-after-trump-backs-broader-reciprocal-tariffs-124741391.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACadGQBg1AUOvSlO0U6dF2ez1ZI6BrfkfQXM5Yr1Ovu4kdi7hbgCoaM-sDlq166ajhodoE1zbVyZlGmYF7CLe2gDngGvQti6t-Vq-s4GaFbytXa5OJTl8TiTiS9gW9obnJt11bDx7meSX3MHcW-HAoSqSTKxzmgKBRhod41irxC8 ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:yes, and? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::This article should contain a mention of Trump's rhetoric regarding actual/proposed international tariffs, and how these tariffs have caused a general decrease in stock prices (including NVDA) across the board, especially over the past 3-4 weeks. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::As an investor, I can safely tell you that this is the single largest stock market shakeup that the United States has experienced since the COVID-19 pandemic. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See current consensus item 37. Is this "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy?" How so? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If this fluctuation leads to a larger stock market crash, would it then warrant inclusion? How is it determined if a market drop is "big" enough for notability/inclusion? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This. It is rarely useful to discuss hypotheticals, merely because it's impossible to predict all the detail and nuance of the hypothetical situation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Due to the immense pushback about Trump censoring "woke" topics on government websites, especially the removal (and subsequent reinstatement) of the Enola Gay page on the defense department, this topic is worthy of inclusion. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sources? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:As for Enola Gay, already proposed and rejected at #Enola Gay. As for the larger issue, I'm undecided whether it warrants inclusion in this biography. Other Trump articles may offer that level of detail. If included here, one or two average-length sentences will suffice. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Separate article at U.S. Department of Defense censorship of DEI-connected material. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::The DOD isn't the only place it's occurring, nor is it just websites. It's also occurring in grant funding (for ex., research into women's health, health disparities by race) and school funding. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe his law firm attacks should be mentioned as he gotten nearly 50Million in pro bono work from multiple law firms and has threaten to dismantle them by revoking federal business John Bois (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this incident is so extreme it deserves inclusion. Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:You shouldn't assume that everyone knows what you're talking about, but since I do, I don't think it deserves inclusion here. It's a DOGE action (what it has to do with cutting waste is beyond me) and belongs on that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's not a DOGE action. It's in response to Trump's EOs. A relevant DOD directive says in part, "In alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders and Secretary Hegseth's directives, this memorandum mandates a digital content refresh across all DoD public platforms. By March 5, 2025, all Components must remove and archive DoD news articles, photos, and videos promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), including content related to critical race theory, gender ideology, and identity-based programs." I don't see a reason to single out the example of the Enola Gay, but there can be a brief mention of the overall Trump Admin effort, with "see also" links to relevant articles, including Anti-DEI deletions by the U.S. Department of Defense and 2025 United States government online resource removals § Removed and modified content. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html This NYT article] about targeted language is a useful resource. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::All that aside, Muboshgu sums it up quite nicely in my opinion: {{tq|This has no biographical significance to Trump though.}} That applies to Enola Gay and all the rest in this topic area. This is a biography, not an account of Trump's presidencies; WP offers numerous other articles focused on the latter and they were written to be read by interested readers. Since the election, we (i.e., a small handful of competent editors) have been diligently trimming presidencies-related detail to keep this article at a readable length. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::My dear Comrade Mandruss, do you not recall that in circa 1919 I did a major trim of this article? You INSTANTLY reverted it, opining that you and your comrades didn't have time (sic) to check whether my edits were valid. Let's revert to that version, thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I know it's a biography. Trump's decisions about what Executive Orders to sign – what he wants to push through by pure presidential power – is absolutely relevant to his biography. EOs are seen as sufficiently relevant to his biography to be mentioned several times (e.g., in the lawsuits they attract, the "Muslim ban," the huge # of EOs he signed on 1/20/25 and the extent to which those enact Project 2025's goals). These particular EOs are quite relevant to the section on his racial and gender views. If you can make a case for the EOs not reflecting Trump's bigotry, I invite you to make it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was about to self-rv after reconsidering your {{tq|there can be a brief mention of the overall Trump Admin effort}}. Sometimes I speak without sufficient thought, and I'm not opposed to high-level "brief mentions" on the more important issues. Maybe you could propose specific content—or BOLDly add it and see how it flies. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hey, man, it will fly like a plumbum pelican!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/07/enola-gay-aircraft-and-other-historic-items-inaccurately-targeted-under-pentagons-anti-dei-purge/ Forbes]:{{tq2|References to the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan during World War II have been flagged for removal in Pentagon documents as the Department of Defense purges references related to diversity, equity and inclusion—in this case, presumably because of the word “gay.”}}I think we need more objective criteria than our opinions of "extreme". I also think inclusion in an appropriate subarticle, when one exists, should be one of the requirements for inclusion here. I also think I would still oppose inclusion here. Just for starters, while I haven't read a lot of the sources, I see no indication Trump had anything to do with this, beyond his creation of DOGE. Even if he did, it would be overdetail for this 12,000-word biography (we need to keep repeating that word at every opportunity, as a reminder to ourselves and others). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's analogous to saying that Hitler's BLP shouldn't mention the Holocaust because that was the responsibility of Himmler! Here at Godwin Ridge, we don't have a good Internet connection, but I assumed Wikipedia would be buzzing with the latest Trump outrage, but it wasn't even mentioned on the Enola Gay page! Wake up, Yankees!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|That's analogous}} Not. Hitler had far more to do with the Holocaust than Trump had to do with flagging Enola Gay for removal. The Holocaust was not Himmler's idea, and the Enola Gay thing was very likely the idea of somebody below Trump, probably below Musk. Trump is not that detail-oriented. For all we know, no human was involved and Enola Gay was flagged by dumb software when it saw the word "Gay". Also, "flagged for removal" doesn't necessarily mean removal; it could mean flagged for review by humans—who, with the benefit of the doubt, might be credited with enough intelligence to know that "Enola Gay" has nothing to do with sexual preference (particularly humans at the Pentagon!). Sources are lacking a lot of context here, I'm sorry to say that some sources will make too much of things just to fill space and keep people employed, and this could easily be a small nothingburger comprising nothing but dry meat and bun. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The problem is Garbage in, garbage out, Musk's "elite" programmer squad not being able to figure out that flagging every mention of certain words and deleting the offending file may have unintended consequences such as deleting images of the Enola Gay (I'm not excusing the intended consequences). Trump is ultimately responsible. For now, maybe a mention in the Second Presidency article — not sure that this idiocy belongs in the top bio. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Flagging for human review is actually the smart way to do it, knowing that humans are smarter than software, especially software that has to be cobbled together in a hurry to stay on Trump's good side and remain employed (no time to develop AI, and no need for AI for this one-time task). I think it's very likely that's what happened here; as a retired software developer, that's exactly how I would do it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The smart way requires common sense which appears to be in short supply at Doge, having left out the review step in flag -> review -> delete or retain: {{tq|Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot told the AP the department is "pleased by the rapid compliance across the Department with the directive removing DEI content," clarifying if "content is removed that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct components accordingly."}} ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/07/enola-gay-aircraft-and-other-historic-items-inaccurately-targeted-under-pentagons-anti-dei-purge/ Forbes]) — the "shoot first, ask questions later, then hide the body" approach. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::We had to invoke Godwin's law that fast? If anything, I think removing the Navajo code talkers is worse than removing an airplane. Or the DOD page on Jackie Robinson. This has no biographical significance to Trump though. It's relevant to DOGE and the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:It seems no worse than a lot of other things, all of which can be covered with one line about the DoD. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Same reaction as to Bible, then, Mr Slater...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the thoughtful response by Comrade Mandruss and the other responses. Some background here. Missing Point is one of the smallest suburbs recorded by the ABS. We live in a houseboat moored off the mudbank, and, mate, the NBN is slow! My dear old mum Effie McGonical AM looked up from her Mac Book last morning as was as crowed the news of Enola Gay. I assumed it was breaking news, and confidently predicted that Wikipedia would be a buzz with the controversy by sun up. But nary a peep from you seppos!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hence the hazard of rushing to include breaking news. Your thread could have waited a couple of weeks to allow the situation to develop and mature. We've been saying it for many years: folks need to stop reading today's news and running to this article to add it or propose adding it. Or any article, for that matter. WP:SLOWTHEFUCKDOWN. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::SORRY, MAATE!Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Refer to our previous clash about the King James Bible. I think it was last year. But time moves vanishingly slow at Period Stop.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have no idea what relevance a clash from a year ago has anything to do with this (as this has sod all to do with any religious book) nor am I going to look for it. As such I shall not respond anymore about this derail other than to say. This is an irrelevant distraction, and in no way explains why THIS addition is needed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay, sorry STEVO! Jack Upland (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:This would be more fitting on the Enola gay page itself. Question169 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Attempted and rejected. See that TP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the consensus is for inclusion somewhere.Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Australia prides itself as the "US's longest ally". Older female Australians in my hillbilly reach are abuzz with the news about Enola Gay etc. Again, sorry for the necropost. Like many aging people I have a good long term memory and a detailed knowledge of WW2. Enola Gay and the simultaneous Soviet invasion undoubtably saved Australia (which has the same pop as the DPRK and a similar geography but is roughly the size of the state of Victoria!!!). The debate whether the Hiroshima bombing was a war crime is still of academic interest in Australia (I hope). But in Oz it is generally agreed by serious historians that the one-two punch saved our big little island continent!!!Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Per your indentation, you're apparently replying to me, so I'll reply back. {{tq|Older female Australians in my hillbilly reach are abuzz with the news about Enola Gay etc.}} Is that a poor argument for inclusion, or off-topic? What's a {{tq|necropost}}? Per [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necr- necr-], it translates to "dead post". But it looks like a cool word I might want to add to my vocabulary. Anyway, your comment appears to be ~98% NOTFORUM vio that only serves to keep this thread on the page longer than necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's included in the U.S. Department of Defense censorship of DEI-connected material article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

After his inauguration Trump fired Nathalie Rayes the incumbent US Ambassador to Croatia and replaced her with Nicole McGraw, a figure who had no prior governmental or diplomatic service. He also announced retaliatory tariffs on the European Union which could impact Croatia. Given these events, how could we effectively document Trump's foreign policy on Croatia in his second term? MilaKuliž (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources:

:"Trump names new U.S. ambassador to Croatia" [https://www.croatiaweek.com/trump-names-new-u-s-ambassador-to-croatia/]

:"Trump names art collector Nicole McGraw as US ambassador to Croatia" [https://www.ntd.com/trump-names-art-collector-nicole-mcgraw-as-us-ambassador-to-croatia_1035395.html]

:"Local art collector and philanthropist chosen as US ambassador to Croatia by Trump" [https://cbs12.com/news/local/xxx-12-18-2024] MilaKuliž (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, there should be some mention of Nicole McGraw's nomination and how it affects US-Croatia relations. You probably don't need all three of these sources though, one or two is probably good enough. Željko Zivošela (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, but why is this an issue? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::During the Presidency of Joe Biden, the United States and the Croatian government (with the possible exception of Zoran Milanović) maintained relatively friendly relations. Croatia made it easier for American companies to sell goods and services in Croatia, and the United States did the same for Croatian companies. Biden's administration also helped negotiate a deal where Croatia would get a lower EU tax on energy imports in exchange for sending weapons and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and taking in Ukrainian refugees. However, the Trump administration's tariffs on the European Union, which Croatia is a member state of, may very well have devastating effects on the ability of Croatian companies to sell their products in the US. Trump's confusing and inconsistent remarks regarding his administration's positions on the war in Ukraine have also caused commotion within Croatia, with conservative president Zoran Milanović applauding his statements at times, and liberal prime minister Andrej Plenković largely refuting them. Other Croatian government officials like Sandra Benčić have also spoken out about the Trump administration's apparent hostility toward Croatia. Compounding all of this, the new Trump-nominated ambassador to Croatia, Nicole McGraw, does not have any prior governmental or diplomatic service. Because of the ability these events have to shape US-Croatia relations, it is more than notable that this be documented on Wikipedia. The sources I mentioned give a good understanding of McGraw's background, as well as the current state of US-Croatia relations. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: During President Donald Trump's second term, U.S.-Croatia relations have been influenced by broader U.S. foreign policy shifts, particularly regarding NATO and European alliances.

:::: In February 2025, U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz announced that President Trump intends to pressure NATO allies who are not meeting their financial obligations. Despite the 2014 agreement for NATO members to allocate at least 2% of their GDP to defense, eight countries, including Croatia, have not fulfilled this commitment. Specifically, Croatia's defense spending decreased from 1.95% in 2021 to 1.81% in 2024. President Trump has proposed raising the defense spending benchmark to 5% of GDP, which would significantly increase the financial contributions required from NATO members. ​[https://nypost.com/2025/02/01/us-news/trump-to-squeeze-nato-allies-who-arent-paying-what-they-owe/?utm_source=chatgpt.com New York Post]

:::: Additionally, President Trump's return to office has bolstered far-right parties and nationalist sentiments across Europe. This trend raises concerns about potential fragmentation within the European Union and its alliances. In Croatia, as in other European nations, these political shifts may influence domestic and foreign policy decisions, potentially affecting the nation's relationship with the United States. ​[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/13/trump-nationalist-europe-meloni-orban-rightwing?utm_source=chatgpt.com theguardian.com]

:::: Overall, the second Trump presidency has introduced dynamics that could impact U.S.-Croatia relations, particularly concerning defense spending obligations and the broader political landscape in Europe.

::::Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the details, but people are complaining that the article is too long as it is. We'll probably only be able to put in 2-3 sentences on this subject. If you could condense that and summarize it in a few sentences, that would be great. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Also, we don't need to mention those specific statistics in the article. Those are given in the New York Post source, so if we cite that source, anyone who wants to know more can visit that article and see the numbers. There is probably a more specific page on Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to list such statistics in the article itself, but Donald Trump probably isn't it. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::wow, did you use ChatGPT to write that? BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, just my fingers and thumbs. ;) Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Are you sure about that? 1101 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:NYPOST{{hsp}}—{{hsp}}it's not a reliable source. 1101 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Joško Ruveneš seems to not have realized that earlier. It's ok, we'll find more suitable sources. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Željko Zivošela, thanks for the reply. I included those three sources because those were the ones I found that I believe best explain the details of the McGraw nomination and US-Croatia relations. If you found other sources that you think would be appropriate, feel free to list them here.

::I started this thread to build consensus on this topic and the appropriate reliable sources before we make an edit that summarizes the details of the McGraw nomination and the effects McGraw and the Trump administration have on US-Croatia relations. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::"You probably don't need all three of these sources though, one or two is probably good enough". @Željko Zivošela, you're right, we probably only need two of these at the most. I'm not sure if there's any important information in one of the RS that isn't mentioned in the others. Like I said, if you find another RS you think may be helpful, feel free to list it here. MilaKuliž (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Here are a couple sources I found that might be helpful:

:::New York Post [https://nypost.com/2025/02/01/us-news/trump-to-squeeze-nato-allies-who-arent-paying-what-they-owe/]

:::The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/13/trump-nationalist-europe-meloni-orban-rightwing/] Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Those would be good for the sentence or two that I plan to propose that would summarize the second Trump administration's impact (so far) on US-Croatia relations. Neither of those mention the McGraw nomination specifically, so we'll still need one (or more) of my sources. Thank you for helping! MilaKuliž (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I researched those two websites, and it seems "New York Post" is center-right and "The Guardian" is center-left.

:::::Just thought I would point that out. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks, we'll take that into consideration. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No problem ;) Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The political center is an utterly subjective notion. What's relevant in this context is fact-based reporting. The New York Post has failed numerous fact checks. 1101 (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Is the Guardian considered a reliable source, or are there problems with it as well? MilaKuliž (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:THEGUARDIAN. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok, so based on the consensus at WP:THEGUARDIAN and the content of the article in question, it seems safe to use that article as a reliable source for our purposes. Thanks. MilaKuliž (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry, I was unaware. We won't use that one. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's ok, mistakes happen. :) MilaKuliž (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:NYPOST and WP:THEGUARDIAN might be helpful. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You cannot use the New York Post for any recent coverage of recent politics. 1101 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::According to WP:NYPOST it is an unreliable source for coverage of recent political events. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was not reliable. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::NYP is not reliable. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, I'm sorry. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Report: It has been determined that the New York Post is not reliable for modern political reporting. MilaKuliž (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's good to know. Paraćina (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Note: This is a repost from the section Talk:Donald Trump#Nicole McGraw nominated to be new ambassador to Croatia

::Trump has nominated an individual named Nicole McGraw to the position of "United States ambassador to Croatia", although she has had no prior service in the government or working in a diplomatic agency.  Many Croatians are upset by this nomination and believe that McGraw is unqualified to fill this position.  McGraw, a former art collector and philanthropist, was nominated by Trump alongside "United States ambassador to the Bahamas" nominee Herschel Walker.

::Voz, [https://voz.us/en/politics/241218/19267/herschel-walker-nicole-mcgraw-ambassadors-bahamas-croatia.html]

::Dubrovnik Times, [https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/croatia/item/17317-trump-announces-nominee-for-u-s-ambassador-to-croatia]

::Because of the diplomatic effects of this nomination, I feel that it should be mentioned in this article. Paraćina (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sources above:

:::Voz [https://voz.us/en/politics/241218/19267/herschel-walker-nicole-mcgraw-ambassadors-bahamas-croatia.html]

:::Dubrovnik Times [https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/croatia/item/17317-trump-announces-nominee-for-u-s-ambassador-to-croatia] MilaKuliž (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Paraćina, thanks for the cited sources. Being a Croatian-based journalism site, Dubrovnik Times gives this story from a Croatian perspective, but if we could find a source that focuses on the Croatian (government and public) response to the McGraw nomination and/or the Trump administration in general, that would be great. MilaKuliž (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is overdetail for this article on Trump's entire life. Trump named quite a few unqualified ambassadors since he took office. I wonder how France feels about Trump appointing his daughter Ivanka's father-in-law Charles Kushner, a convicted felon pardoned by Trump during his first term, ambassador to France, or how Greece feels about the appointment of Trump's eldest son's former fiancee. On sources see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The NY Post is not a reliable source for most content — see the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The Guardian is a reliable source, but the article cited above is an opinion — see WP:NEWSOPED. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You may want to move this discussion to Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration#Europe. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump only talks about infrastructure for the first 7 min. The incident in Charlottesville is not mentioned in the text. In the end, Trump talks about owning a winery. The video seems pretty random.--Deva1995 (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Moved the video into Donald Trump#Race relations, the section discussing Trump's remarks on the Unite the Right rally. The video was probably left behind when content was moved around. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this and more aggressive archiving will help with the loading. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Voicing objection to your more aggressive closures/archiving, per my comments on your UTP. Archival of some relatively small threads a few days earlier than normal (auto-archival) is not going to address the performance issues much, certainly not enough to justify deviating from long-standing process at this article. It does shorten the ToC, which is always a Good Thing, but that's not enough justification either. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Enormous sections of the main article have been reproduced in the RfCs. That is a large part of the problem. Riposte97 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:And after the archival of all the threads closed by the OP, the performance issue remains largely the same. I hate being right all the time. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The page says: "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic, and he has made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics.", I think it should be changed to: "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism, and his faction is dominant within the Republican Party. Many of his comments and actions have been accused of racist or misogynistic, and he has made disputed statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics." BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Characterised and accused would mean basically the same thing in this context. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:1) Your proposed wording is grammatically incorrect. 2) Many of Trump's statements are demonstrably false. Not disputed. False. Contrary to facts. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Khajidha Oh yeah, I just realized I forgot to type a few words, it is grammaticality incorrect. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1283887532][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1284348386]

Alright. Enough of the back-and-forth (slow-burn edit war) over the infobox image caption. Note: This is not a discussion about the choice of infobox image.

• Official. GN22 assumes that there can be only one official portrait for each term. GN22 further assumes that there will be a more "typical" presidential portrait in the upcoming months. That's been the tradition at least in my memory, but Trump doesn't care about traditions, especially Trump47 (I would start calling him IARDJT on this page, but that would be one letter longer). This is the currently official portrait, and we don't need to add "currently" to the caption. It was originally the inaugural portrait, and then it became the current official portrait when Trump47 put it on his page at whitehouse.gov. To my knowledge, there is no formal official definition of "official portrait", no government rules about that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Official. The official portrait released for the occasion of the inauguration is also an official portrait ([https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly443wxl78o random BBC article: Donald Trump's and JD Vance's official portraits released]), so can't go wrong with "official portrait". —Alalch E. 05:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• White House website portrait, 2025? Didn't they use to upload the official portraits to Flickr? Looks as though you now have to make screenshots of the images at [https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/ The administration], and all four images are weird compositions or just weird (cabinet members hiding in the bushes?). Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|Didn't they use to upload the official portraits to Flickr?}} I don't know, but that could hardly be the definition of "official". The rest is off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Does it matter whether we call it "official" or "inaugural" if it's not designated as one or the other by the publisher, i.e., the White House website? Thus the suggestion "White House website portrait, 2025", alternatively "Portrait, 2025". Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::It matters that we end the slow-burn edit war. That requires choosing something. Too many options (and possible overthink) don't help us choose something. It's a fairly inconsequential photo caption. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Official. The term is not a formal designation, and this image is being used as official and described by RS as such. — Goszei (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Trumpsignature2025.svg I traced Trump's signature on Inkscape and it's a much more recent one of his, rather than from 2017. It also reflects how he now uses a thicker pen. Maybe it should replace the 2017 one on affiliated pages? Rexophile (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, why not. Like it matters. Must have a recent signature in a biography of an entire life! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I updated the signature—most recent one (goose/gander—good for the image, good for the signature). Thicker pen: he's now using a Sharpie instead of the customary Cross pen, and he appears to spell his name Truump or Trummp. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Rexophile (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Goszei}}, re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1280435818&oldid=1280429047 this edit], my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1280436783 revert], a discussion basically between you and me, with input by two other editors and a third one saying "support". It lasted six hours and was archived seven days later, final status two editors supporting your sentence, two opposing it (one of them supporting mention of Trump being a billionaire), and one supporting mentioning Trump's billionaire status in the lead. Then three weeks later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1280436783 this edit] adding a 2015 Forbes article to the body, referencing the discussion, and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1283812654 same edit to the lead] as before, editsum "per consensus from the same discussion". The sentence: {{tq2|After six business bankruptcies in the 1990s and 2000s, he began side ventures, mostly licensing the Trump name.}} (The licensing part seems to have been removed since January. Your sentence: {{tq2|He filed for six business bankruptcies in the 1990s and 2000s, became a billionaire, and began side ventures, many licensing the Trump name.}} It sounds as though becoming a billionaire is the result of filing for six business bankruptcies. In the previous discussion you wrote that {{tq|The proposed addition simply claims he was a billionaire by 2015}}. Does it, though? The side ventures began in the 1980s, and some of them contributed to the $900 million he personally owed in the early 1990s. The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/trump-taxes-takeaways.html wrote in 2019] {{tq|while enjoying the lifestyle of a billionaire — which he claims to be}}. We can now follow the ups and downs of his billions from Trump Media stock and the crypto stuff but his real estate holdings are still guesswork. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have a proposal? Riposte97 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:I like the recent revision to "From 2004 to 2015, he hosted the reality television show The Apprentice, bolstering his fame as a billionaire", since this explicitly ties the label to both a time frame and his public image, which is the goal in mentioning it. In the archived discussion, you are the only editor of the five participants who expressed explicit opposition to the addition, with three editors in support. — Goszei (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::These were all "Chapter 11 bankruptcies" which is the form which is also used in the main body. If this is kept in the lede, then it would be preferable to be consistent and call it 'Chapter 11 bankruptcies' rather than the ambiguous 'business bankruptcies'. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::How is that ambiguous? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Lede should be corrected to state that these are "Chapter 11 bankruptcies" rather than the ambiguous "Business bankruptcies" currently displayed. There are six types of bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code, located at Title 11 of the United States Code:

• Chapter 7: basic liquidation for individuals and businesses; also known as straight bankruptcy; it is the simplest and quickest form of bankruptcy available
• Chapter 9: municipal bankruptcy; a federal mechanism for the resolution of municipal debts
• Chapter 11: rehabilitation or reorganization, used primarily by business debtors but sometimes by individuals with substantial debts and assets; known as corporate bankruptcy, it is a form of corporate financial reorganization that typically allows companies to continue to function while they follow debt repayment plans
• Chapter 12: rehabilitation for family farmers and fishermen
• Chapter 13: rehabilitation with a payment plan for individuals with a regular source of income; enables individuals with regular income to develop a plan to repay all or part of their debts; also known as wage earner bankruptcy
• Chapter 15: ancillary and other international cases; provides a mechanism for dealing with bankruptcy debtors and helps foreign debtors clear debts

The main body of the Trump article gets this correct, but the lede puts in the amibuous term. Lede should state "Chapter 11 bankruptcies" the same as is already done in the main body of the Trump article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have no problem with that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:This would be excessive jargon for the lead. Personal bankruptcies are generally Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, and business bankruptcies are typically Chapter 11. The ambiguity exists but is minimal, and doesn't justify the inclusion of a fairly obscure and technical term. The proposed change would leave the average reader less informed, in comparison to just stating "business bankruptcies". — Goszei (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:↑↑↑ +1. Spoke too soon, swayed by Goszei. Stricken. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::The term should be linked in the lede. This would be consistent with the main body of the article. Someone has deleted the link in the lede section and its looks better if it is restored for the 'bankruptcy' sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It takes about 30 seconds for the reply box to load, and almost a minute for the reply to get posted. Why is that? Joško Ruveneš (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've been getting similar delays for days. Gives me more time to think. :) No telling, other than the fact that it's 610K with a lot of code. Might make a good discussion for WP:VPT. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:In fact, I started one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::We can discuss it here. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why not discuss it here? That's what we've been doing for the past 18 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for taking the initiative. MilaKuliž (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have that problem. It's probably just your internet connection. 1101 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::In which case I would see slowdowns everywhere. I don't. Well theoretically it could be a problem with one of the routers between me and en.wikipedia.org, a router that I don't pass through to get to any other site. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, it took a while but I'm getting it here now, too. 1101 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Joško Ruveneš}} for me 1/2 seconds. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hmmm... it seems that some users are experiencing loading/lag issues on this page, while others aren't... perhaps it has to do with the users' geographic location? MilaKuliž (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:The HTML report about performance measures that MediaWiki shows says NewPP limit report Parsed by <> Cached time: 20250402093719 Cache expiry: 864000 Reduced expiry: true Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, vary‐revision‐id, show‐toc] DiscussionTools time usage: 0.747 seconds CPU time usage: 7.973 seconds Real time usage: 8.894 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 60575/1000000 Post‐expand include size: 1744129/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 140132/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 19/100 Expensive parser function count: 93/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 1946515/5000000 bytes Lua time usage: 4.667/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 17479034/52428800 bytes Lua Profile: ? 1600 ms 32.4% dataWrapper 460 ms 9.3% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::getAllExpandedArguments 280 ms 5.7% recursiveClone 260 ms 5.3% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::find 220 ms 4.5% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 220 ms 4.5% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::gsub 200 ms 4.0% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::match 160 ms 3.2% citation0 120 ms 2.4% MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::sub 100 ms 2.0% [others] 1320 ms 26.7% Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 7515.436 1 -total 35.12% 2639.651 15 Template:Reflist 27.36% 2056.442 367 Template:Cite_news 19.06% 1432.627 1 Template:WikiProject_banner_shell 18.47% 1387.968 10 Template:Collapse 18.42% 1384.484 8 Template:Sources-talk 18.30% 1375.695 8 Template:Reflist-talk 16.49% 1239.475 5 Template:Reftalk 10.72% 806.025 1 Template:Talk_header 6.49% 488.080 9 Template:Th/abp for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well that's helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Its way too big. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::What would you suggest we do about that? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Archive more rapidly. 1101 (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Hmmm. Interesting concept. Let's see what comes of the VPT discussion notice, if anything. If nothing, and the problem continues, we could ask whether, say, four days idle is enough, and potentially modify current consensus item 13. {{small|Editors who edit only on Sundays (e.g.) would be screwed a lot.}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Testing - no problem here. Seven days is the absolute minimum, IMO, what with the zone currently being flooded with shite and quite a bit of it being reflected here. Also, some of us do have a life away from WP, occasionally and not always voluntarily. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Still testing - with "edit" instead of "reply". Seven days is the absolute minimum, IMO, what with the zone currently being flooded with shite and quite a bit of it being reflected here. Also, some of us do have a life away from WP, occasionally and not always voluntarily. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Reply box and editor open immediately, posting reply takes about 10 seconds, edit a bit faster. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Mine takes about 10 seconds to open and about 30 seconds to post the reply. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yours is pretty quick. Mine is roughly 20 seconds to load the reply box and 40 seconds to post the reply. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Same for me. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is purposely making this page take longer to load to prevent people from complaining about how biased this article is. SaveOurFreeAmerica1983 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Stop being a drama queen and stop trying to pick a fight. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm... who else do we know of who indulges in irrational conspiracy theories? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My latest reply took almost a full minute to post. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is what I got. MilaKuliž (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Start being as bit hard, and removing any threads that repeat an already asked question that is still active? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We try to close those as duplicate, then manually archive after 24 hours. To the extent we keep after that (Croatia is an unusual case for some reason), it's not likely to be a significant contributor to the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What’s all this fuss about Croatia? 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Four threads about Croatia on the page simultaneously. Likely much duplication, which scatters discussion, forces editors to make the same comments in multiple threads, and risks conflicting consensuses about the same content. Just piss poor organization all around. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Do closed threads automatically get archived? ArmstadtHuber (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::No, not just by virtue of being closed. They would be subject to auto-archival after 7 days idle, like any other thread. The main reason for closing is to allow early manual archival per consensus 13. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:phab:T390846 seems related. Apparantly the ATS was flooded. The ATS is several caching servers containing the most accessed pages, placed around the world in America, Europe and Asia. Snævar (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Snævar}} {{tq|was}} - So you would expect the problem to be gone now? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Its also really slow for me. 166.196.79.26 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Simply it's way to big. Talk pages over 500kish start slowering down and causing weird issues for some editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just to note if you don't get these issues that doesn't mean that they don't happen, they just don't happen for you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Data point: I just did a "speed test" here, and it took 20 seconds to "publish" a small comment. Considerably longer than that to which I have become accustomed. :){{pb}}It's true that the current 619K is the largest it's ever been, in terms of wikitext size, with the second largest being ~480K in Feb 2017. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It was 621K as of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=1283594343 this edit]. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It looks like it is 621K again. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's now 624K as of this post. MilaKuliž (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Now it's over 637K bytes. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, we don't need to keep updating this count every single time the page size changes. The main idea is that this page is over 600,000 bytes (way above average for a Wikipedia page) which is lowering efficiency and server response time. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, we don't need the play-by-play. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:VPT requests platform data for those experiencing slowdown. Desktop or mobile? For desktop, operating system and browser. For mobile, operating system Android or iOS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Desktop, Windows 11, current Firefox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Desktop, Macbook Pro, current Safari. ArmstadtHuber (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Desktop, Linux, Firefox. 1101 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Mobile, desktop site, android, Chrome. The effect is the same on all large (500k+) talk pages (it's not something unique to this page), the effect is only on seen on Wikipedia (it is something seemingly unique to this website). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*:{{tq|(it's not something unique to this page)}} - Now that's interesting. Kinda changes the whole picture. I was thinking this page was sick (as opposed to obese). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*::No it's an issue that regularly happens on WP:RSN, the page bloat is for the same reason (contentious RFCs). They don't get archived, as they are open for 30 days, and get bloated by back and forth comments. One of the RFCs on this page accounts for over 1/3 of it's size. Whenever it happens there will be a comment to two about slow downs and odd behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Desktop, Windows 10, Microsoft Edge. MilaKuliž (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed that this page is slow for me too. Paraćina (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Any idea why? Paraćina (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::No. BhopalFonduImphal (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For me, the lag is significantly less, but still present. Joško Ruveneš (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Best guess as of now is that it's substantially larger than it has been in its entire history. See this thread. But under investigation at WP:VPT. Please add your platform information just above. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:This might be of interest: Talk:Donald Trump#Test for Timing - MilaKuliž (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::The result was that it took about 43 seconds to post a new thread. Thought I'd share here. MilaKuliž (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Anyone else getting inconsistency? I didn't think I'd ever noticed this and then tested by hitting reply and had to wait about 20 seconds for it to load. I was surprised since I'd sure I'd never noticed this before then testing again and it didn't happen. I've now tried hitting reply about 20 times and it was always very fast. I tried in fresh incognito windows several times with the same browser, not logged in and reply likewise was always very fast. The worse was one time it was 2 or 3 seconds. It could be just something was weird that time it was super slow and it is unrelated to the general problem. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Since my mind is single-threaded, I can't think about the performance problem and attend to the task at hand at the same time. I don't know how consistent mine is, but I don't know that knowing standard deviation will help troubleshoot or solve the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Performance starts to fall off after roughly 500k, and gets increasingly worse after that. The larger the page the more editors notice the effect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I can confirm it's trivial to reproduce the problem in your talk sandbox by copying this page even without the headers. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nil_Einne/sandbox&oldid=1283743242] as an example. I'd suggest anyone who want to test the problem do something like this, rather than posting on this page and adding to the problem. I mean you could revert and use my sandbox talk if you really want, I just wasn't sure if there was still some violation even without headers so didn't want to keep it there. Also, the time it takes for the reply edit window to load is a complicated. At least for me it can be slow, but only the first time. More explanation here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unusual slowdowns at Talk:Donald Trump. The real test is submitting a reply which seems consistently slow. This does mean if you want to test, you need to actually reply but as I said best use your sandbox. (For clarity the time it takes for the reply edit window to load is what I was testing for my first reply. I'm fairly sure it's why it seemed inconsistent. I didn't want to actually reply and make things worse and since people were saying the reply edit window takes a while to load, I thought I could just test with that.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Also I don't think it's purely a matter of page size. This was ~1.3MB [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nil_Einne/sandbox&oldid=1283747726] but at least for me is still relatively fast with the reply tool compared to the 650k or whatever Trump talk page partial clone. I suspect it's the number of replies and/or other things like templates etc. For an ordinary talk page, these are likely fairly correlated with size and aren't something you can reduce without reducing the page size, but probably important if you want to test further and/or diagnose what's contributing to it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's definitely an issue of Wikipedia's talk pages and not other content, but the size of the pages is a good indicator of how bad the issue will be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Joško Ruveneš|Talib1101|Slatersteven|MilaKuliž|ActivelyDisinterested|BhopalFonduImphal|Paraćina}} If you are experiencing what you consider unreasonable slowdowns when using this page (particularly when posting on this page), please add your platform information in the bulleted list above. VPT needs that to continue troubleshooting this. Same for IP editors (who can't be pinged) and any other users who visit this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Valereee}} I should have included you in the preceding pings. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|{{small|WP:NOTFORUM ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)}}}}

:Why wouldn't the page be slow? It's about an almost-79-year-old obese dude who can't golf without a cart and has frequent moments of incoherence. A slow page about a slow man _pbp 22:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

:I went ahead and archived some threads that hadn't been replied to in April. It isn't much, but it should hopefully make a chip. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 23:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Babysharkboss2}} And I reverted you per current consensus item 13. You did the same thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1270807026 in January], and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1270807292 reverted you] per consensus 13. Then you did the same thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1278929904 in March], and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1278934613 reverted you] per consensus 13. Since you obviously have some kind of learning problem regarding archivals (or don't know what consensus means, or can't read edit summaries), I'm requesting that you refrain from archivals at this article going forward. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::As I've said below, a large part of the problem is that enormous tracts of the article have been reproduced in the RfCs above. Riposte97 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:The issue appears to be resolved (mostly). MilaKuliž (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::The VPT thread was auto-archived on 10 April with no clear answers or resolution. There may be a related open phab ticket, I don't know; that was mentioned in the VPT thread. The problem may be one of those mystery transients that happen from time to time. I'm not inclined to close this at this point; just let it run its normal course, eventually ending with auto-archival. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss, regarding [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1285190172 this revert]: Yes, the article uses "said" many times, but only when referring to persons. Using "said" when referring to an institution or organisation reads extremely awkwardly, like a first grade text. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:To see how reliable sources feel about it, Google "the white house said". I don't think their target readers are first graders. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Of course, many (reliable) sources use "said" in their headlines because it is concise and attention-grabbing. However, that doesn't change the fact that it reads very informally and awkwardly in body texts. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Did you Google that? Who said anything about headlines? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I did google it, and it appears to be used very frequently in headlines, including by reliable sources. In body texts? Not so excessively. There it's usually specified and applied to persons (e.g., "White House press secretary said [...]"). Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's used enough in body text of reliable sources to disprove your claim that it {{tq|reads extremely awkwardly, like a first grade text.}} These are people who write for a living, with a main target audience very similar to ours. In most cases, it got past their copy editors, who are paid to correct such things. If this is a WP:ENGVAR difference, I'll point out that this article is written in American English. That said, you can Google "the white house said" site:bbc.co.uk to see how BBC UK feels about it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::To be clear, I'm not unconditionally opposed to changing a "said" to "stated". Just not with your rationale—that "said" is insufficiently formal or awkward in this context (rationale is important, not just results). The article uses "stated" only once, and one might sell the idea that it should offer more variety to avoid being repetitive and boring. There is no case for "internal consistency" in this usage. For example, I've no objection to changing ten saids to stateds, distributed somewhat evenly throughout the article. This could include this White House case, just by chance. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1285226236] subject to BRD challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Where did you get the idea that [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/say SAY] is informal? MOS:SAID: {{tq|In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications. ... Stated is usually acceptable, especially in formal contexts (e.g., a declaration in court).}} The article says "Trump said" or "Trump has said" 19 times, once in "the lead bank's attorney said", followed by the direct quote, and once in "In 2018, Bornstein [Trump's former physician] said". The other three times "said" was used for the NY attorney general, the White House (Leavitt emailed a statement to CBS MoneyWatch), and the NY Times saying stuff—meh, let's call these "more formal" and use "stated". Doesn't seem excessive in a bio of more than 11,000 words about an individual who says everything everywhere all the time. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285233462&oldid=1285226236 Your edits], for the record. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

24 hour notice that I am considering restoring this sentence. I worked on it at Tafiffs in the second Trump administration where it's designed to be understandable to an 8th grade student and has undergone several changes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1284986225&oldid=1284980453 The revert] by {{u|JohnAdams1800}} says {{tq|"He paused those extra tariffs, kept the 10% tariffs FWIW."}} which is true but dismissed the preposterous foundation on which the entire world balanced. I'm working on a better source.

{{tqb|Trump substantiated global tariffs with his formula published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative: {{small|$\backslash text\{reciprocal\; tariff\}\; =\; \backslash left(\; \backslash frac\{\backslash text\{exports\}\; -\; \backslash text\{imports\}\}\{\backslash text\{imports\}\}\; \backslash right)\; \backslash times\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{2\}$}}.{{cite news |title=President Trump’s Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It’s Also Based on an Error. |url=https://www.aei.org/economics/president-trumps-tariff-formula-makes-no-economic-sense-its-also-based-on-an-error/ |first1=Kevin |last1=Corinth |first2=Stan |last2=Veuger |date=April 4, 2025 |work=American Enterprise Institute}}}}

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC) SusanLesch (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:What is it that you want to source? (the fact of what formula is used? the fact that the formula used is ludicrous, as it confuses a foreign country's tariff rate with its trade deficit, and even there bases the deficit calculation only on good while ignoring services? something else?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Pardon me, I'd rather not speculate on sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. You said "I'm working on a better source," and I'm just seeking clarification: a better source for what? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Let me be clear. I do not wish to discuss hypothetical sources with you. The tariffs have been out less than two weeks. There's more to be said about them. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK, my intention was to help you find a better source for whatever you wanted a better source for, but since you won't clarify what you're looking for, I cannot help. Maybe you didn't want any help to begin with. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:That’s not strictly true though, the formula they provided had two other variables, it’s just that they cancelled out. Imo for this article it’s better to say this in prose (WP:PROSE), that the calculation for “reciprocal tariffs” was effectively the trade deficit Kowal2701 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not so. Did you read Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration#Formula_calculation? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The one you’re proposing isn’t the one they published, so the statement’s incorrect Kowal2701 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Right. Now you sound better than reciprocal tariffs = trade deficit. What I propose is also known as plain English. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It’s still incorrect, it’d be better to say the one they published simplified to this (as the section says) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not only that, but the one that they published is not the one that they're using. The one that they're using has a 10% minimum that is not reflected in the formula they published or in the one above. The one that they're actually using has to be defined in parts, and applies even if there's a trade surplus rather than a trade deficit. Moreover, where the formula above says "imports" and "exports," the reference is only to imports/exports of goods and excludes imports/exports of services, and any statement about it needs to make that explicit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Seems too deep in the weeds for this article. Does anybody think this passes current consensus item 37? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe not. Still thinking about it. I'm not in a hurry. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Imo this would make a great note Kowal2701 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sounds good. I'm starting to agree with {{u|JohnAdams1800}} and Mandruss. While I was busy learning math markup, Trump changed his mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe an example of the good reason to wait awhile before considering an addition? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/04/12/trump-tariff-exemptions-smartphones-computers/ 24 minutes ago], blinking furiously: {{tq|Phones, other electronics exempt from new tariffs, Trump administration says}}. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If he's carving out exceptions for his buddies like Apple, reversed track, and has his press secretary spinning the news for the media, there was never a plan. "Reciprocal tariffs" could be a short-lived phenomenon. We'll see in 90 days. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{sources-talk}}

{{u|BootsED}}'s edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1284986225 partially reverted] my bold edits to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1284556605&oldid=1284554295 body, Foreign Policy, 2026-present] {{tq2|declaring the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency and invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act}} and to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1284556605 lead] {{tq2|declaring the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency}} with the editsum "Overdetail". Trump is now [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/business/economy/trump-tariffs-challenge-megadonors.html getting sued] for "circumventing Congress by unlawfully using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose the tariffs". This is the important detail that needs to stay; everything else is developing news and subject to change — 10%–145% tariffs, penguins, misleading formulas, temporary pauses, biggest tax hike, etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Take a look at how many lawsuits have been filed in less than 100 days (and it's even missing a few filed in the last several days). The article cannot possibly refer even to all of the main categories of lawsuits. The foreign policy section might more appropriately refer to tanking US relationships with other countries, including longtime allies, via the trade war, holding tourists in detention, threats to take over Canada/Greenland/Panama Canal, ... FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:So while I have nothing against what was written, it's simply too much detail to be put on the page. Information about the specific statutory authority and legal rationale is excessive. What we need to know is simply that he pursued a protectionist trade policy and imposed sweeping tariffs, the extra detail instead put on the relevant pages about those tariffs. For the body, I instead replaced it with information about the historical significance of those tariffs, which is more noteworthy than discussing the legal authority and the like. BootsED (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|the historical significance of those tariffs}} — which ones? They're proposals at this point and changing on a daily basis, not even counting the game of chicken with China. WP:NOTNEWS Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Obviously Trump's second term keeps having things happen so I'm not trying establish any "permanent" consensus here. But as a baseline for now, what do we think we should mention and link in the last paragraph of the lead, the one beginning with the sentence "Trump began his second term by ..."? Below are what I think all possible options are (and the ones currently in the lead are marked with an asterisk, though note that something's current inclusion doesn't mean it wasn't excluded just a few minutes ago, and vice versa):

1. Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants *
2. Department of Government Efficiency
3. 2025 United States federal mass layoffs *
4. Tariffs in the second Trump administration *
5. 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico
6. American expansionism under Donald Trump
7. Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
8. List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump *
9. Legal affairs of the second Donald Trump presidency
10. Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump

My personal preference is linking 2 & 3 together, 4 & 5 together, and 8 & 9 together. The exact sentence structure can be decided after we've decided what's worthy of including in it. DecafPotato (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with the scheme you have proposed. Point 10 is important and already borderline ready for inclusion; it should be added if we continue to see the deportation net grow wider (beyond the Salvadorean prison news, student activist deportations, etc.), which I think is likely. 6 should only be mentioned if the U.S. moves on Greenland/Canada/Gaza/etc., and 7 should only be mentioned if a Ukraine peace is signed. — Goszei (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's a starting point for discussing Trump's many promises made during the first 100 days of his second term. It might also be useful to have another point added to cover criticism of Trump as having only one term as preseident remaining along with the unlikelihood of a 'theoretical' third term mentioned repeatedly by journalists and scholars in RS. The other point to add to your list is the very long list of point by point reversals of the Biden administration actions along with his repeated criticisms (over and over) of how poor a president he considered Biden. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd add Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration (which should be broadened to targeting the legal profession, as he's also attacking judges), which might be combined with your item #1.

:It's clear that there are also some articles that need to be created and then might be briefly addressed, such as;

:* Targeting of education and research (Second presidency of Donald Trump § Actions against higher education is a start on that)

:* Massive foreign aid cuts (Executive Order 14169 addresses this to some extent, and there are some sections about it in other articles); this is projected to lead to huge numbers of deaths (which is starting), affect disease transmission in the US, and lead to loss of soft power; there are other Trump choices that will also negatively affect health in the US, including the choice of RFK Jr. and research cuts

:* Putting loyalty over qualifications, both in nominees (e.g., Hegseth) and in firings/forced resignations (e.g., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff); related: retaliation (e.g., the firings of at least 12 career prosecutors who worked with Jack Smith and of FBI who'd worked on Jan. 6 cases) and removal of watchdogs (e.g., firings of Inspectors General)

:* Widespread anti-DEI actions

:FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::One other category: harming relationships with longtime allies, which is connected to 4 and 5. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:You said it yourself: {{tq|Obviously Trump's second term keeps having things happen so I'm not trying establish any "permanent" consensus here.}}. What's the point in establishing a baseline at this time if it's not to establish a consensus and lock in a version of the lead? A temporary consensus — for how long and reversible under what conditions? Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Hi {{u|DecafPotato}}; It looks like you have received some responses to this subject and some interest. Are you planning to develop any one of your items into a new section or subsection for use in the Trump biography here? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = closing

| result = None of the sources listed are MEDRS or announcing an official diagnosis, which is what is required by the previous RfC. If you'd like to include something that focusses solely on his temperamental fitness for office, please open a new section. Valereee (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Prior discussion discussed the possibility of expanding the health section of the page to briefly touch on Trump's mental health, which resulted in a split and no consensus. Based on the page Age and health concerns about Donald Trump and some sources brought up in prior discussions, I would like to propose one possible example of how this could look on the page.

{{tq2|Trump has been described by researchers as having an "off-the-charts" personality and campaigning style when compared to other world leaders.{{Cite journal |last1=Nai |first1=Alessandro |last2=Martínez i Coma |first2=Ferran |last3=Maier |first3=Jürgen |date=January 22, 2019 |title=Donald Trump, Populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the Personality Traits and Campaigning Styles of Trump and Other Leaders Worldwide |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psq.12511 |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |volume=49 |issue=3 |access-date=March 29, 2025 |pages= |issn=0360-4918 |doi=10.1111/psq.12511 |url-status=live }} An academic consensus across multiple studies has characterized him as having "very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism".{{Cite journal |last1=Nai |first1=Alessandro |last2=Maier |first2=Jürgen |date=2021 |title=Can anyone be objective about Donald Trump? Assessing the personality of political figures |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2019.1632318#abstract |journal=Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties |volume=31 |issue=3 |access-date=December 14, 2024 |page=285 |issn=1745-7289 |doi=10.1080/17457289.2019.1632318 |quote=Across different academic studies, a consensus seems to emerge regarding the 'off the charts' personality of Donald Trump, which is often characterized by very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism.|hdl=11245.1/7842a14d-92fd-4d6c-9e32-37be1331ed53 |hdl-access=free }} Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family.{{Cite magazine |last=Rashid |first=Hafiz |date=August 19, 2024 |title=Trump Nephew Reveals Family's Dementia History—And His Uncle's Signs |url=https://newrepublic.com/post/185016/trump-nephew-family-dementia-history-warning-signs |access-date=2024-08-19 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ |first=Carlos |last=Lozada |title=Is Trump Mentally Ill? Or Is America? Psychiatrists Weigh In |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 22, 2017 |access-date=2018-07-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180726022623/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ |archive-date=2018-07-26 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Baker |first1=Peter |author-link1=Peter Baker (journalist) |last2=Freedman |first2=Dylan |date=October 6, 2024 |title=Trump's Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/politics/trump-speeches-age-cognitive-decline.html |access-date=November 6, 2024 |work=The New York Times}} Such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.{{Cite journal |last=Piccorelli |first=Justin T. |last2=Cawley |first2=R. McGreggor |date=December 2022 |title=The Case of Donald Trump and the Goldwater Rule: Politics and Professional Ethics Intertwined |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10659129211004785 |journal=Political Research Quarterly |language=en |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=1313–1320 |doi=10.1177/10659129211004785 |issn=1065-9129}}}}

I believe this would serve as an appropriate top-level summary of the relevant child article about Trump for this page, as large parts of it are about his mental health which have no mention on this page at all. BootsED (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Watch that over-repetition of surname. Two of those three Trumps are unnecessary and unnatural. {{small|For readers, there is no "reset" between sentences like you have between paragraphs. Sentences do not stand alone but are part of a continuous flow.}} ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Good catch! I fixed it. BootsED (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Dementia fails verification: The cited TNR article does not contain a psychiatrist's speculation that Trummp may have dementia. The cited WaPo article ([https://web.archive.org/web/20180709171933/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ archive.org]) doesn't cover dementia. A [https://web.archive.org/web/20240723001043/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/22/trump-age-health/ 2024 WaPo article] cited in Age and health concerns about Donald Trump has: "Some experts previously told The Post that Trump could face an elevated genetic risk of dementia" which is not speculation that he has dementia, it is speculation that he is more likely to get dementia. The NYT article has: "Experts said it was hard to judge whether the changes in Mr. Trump’s speaking style could indicate typical effects of age or some more significant condition", and is generally neither here nor there, and has no explicit reference to dementia. There's a mention of "moments of forgetfulness", but the word "dementia" does not appear.{{pb}}I need to see: "I (a psychiatrist) believe/think/suspect, that Trump has dementia". We don't have that statement in the four sources (three in the proposed addition here and the 2024 WaPo piece in the daughter article). From multiple psychiatrists. We need that statement to exist in the sources to be able to say: "Some psychiatrists ... have speculated that he may have ... dementia ...".—Alalch E. 23:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Good catch. That was posted over from the age and health concerns page. I think [https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html this] source would possibly satisfy your concerns, and although dementia is mentioned it more explicitly talks about cognitive decline in general, stating: "Leading mental health experts, including a former White House doctor, have expressed alarm over Donald Trump's mental faculties, suggesting he's showing signs of "cognitive decline."

::A revised sentence would read: {{tq2|Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging.{{Cite news |last=Lubin |first=Rhian |date=September 25, 2025 |title=Mental health experts sound the alarm on Trump’s potential 'cognitive decline' as he's 'lost touch with reality' |work=The Independent |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html |access-date=March 29, 2025 |url-status=live |quote=Leading mental health experts, including a former White House doctor, have expressed alarm over Donald Trump's mental faculties, suggesting he's showing signs of "cognitive decline." }}{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ |first=Carlos |last=Lozada |title=Is Trump Mentally Ill? Or Is America? Psychiatrists Weigh In |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 22, 2017 |access-date=2018-07-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180726022623/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/ |archive-date=2018-07-26 |url-status=live }}}} BootsED (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I have now read that Independent article, and agree with you entirely. That revised sentence is good. Thank you. —Alalch E. 00:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Such an edit would need to be explicit about saying that this is a speculative diagnosis and not based on any documented medical report from Trump's doctors. Its a significant difference between speculative diagnoses and documented diagnoses. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yep! The word "speculated" is in there. BootsED (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Shouldn't this discussion be closed per Current Consensus 39? PackMecEng (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::Disclaimer: I haven't been involved in the history of this issue.{{pb}}WP:CCC would normally apply, particularly after the passage of almost four years, but item 39 includes: Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This appears to be based in the first paragraph of the closure of the second discussion. That closure was performed by admin {{u|Valereee}}, so perhaps she could be persuaded to weigh in—or to close this thread herself if she feels it shouldn't have been opened.{{pb}}At a minimum, I think something this sensitive and controversial would need another RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::This discussion is a continuation of the discussion above, which was not closed. Others noted that Consensus 39 was not applicable in this instance, as there is no claim that Trump suffers from any mental diagnosis. We are merely reporting on extensive media and research discussion about it. An entire separate page even exists on this topic. Why can it be mentioned there but not here? This is no different than Joe Biden's health and age concerns being noted in his own page. BootsED (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The difference would be that most ordinary people can see and agree that Biden unfortunately has lewy body dementia at this point, which is not the case here. All the discussion about Trump's health doesn't seem that notable at THIS point. Of course that could change over the next few years. --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::So when the media reports on Biden's mental health, it is okay to include on his page, but if it reports on Trump's mental health, it cannot be added? This seems like a double standard. BootsED (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Let's see what Valereee has to say, if anything. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|We are merely reporting on extensive media and research discussion about it.}} Which is what lead to that item. It all feeds into the Goldwater Rule. PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Rule 39 explicitly states that "This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office". I would say this current addition satisfies that requirement. BootsED (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you've now asserted that point at least twice. Now let's see what Valereee has to say about it, if anything. She's obviously well familiar with the history of the issue; and she's a successful, long-time admin; so we can assume she knows more than any of us do and can speak with some authority on the process question. Being competent, she will give fair consideration to your argument(s).{{pb}}Again, I'm fairly certain this needs RfC if it moves forward. In that case, no consensus will be established in this thread. We could use it for pre-RfC workshopping, deciding what to propose in the RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:NO, as it seems to me to have had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

{{sources-talk}}

{{abot}}

I'm re-opening this section following discussion with admin Valereee and Goldsztajn below. The one sentence regarding the specifics of media speculation regarding Trump's mental health has been stricken for violation of Consensus Item 39, although the remainder has been deemed acceptable. For clarity, the current proposal is posted below:

{{tq2|Trump has been described by researchers as having an "off-the-charts" personality and campaigning style when compared to other world leaders.{{Cite journal |last1=Nai |first1=Alessandro |last2=Martínez i Coma |first2=Ferran |last3=Maier |first3=Jürgen |date=January 22, 2019 |title=Donald Trump, Populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the Personality Traits and Campaigning Styles of Trump and Other Leaders Worldwide |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psq.12511 |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |volume=49 |issue=3 |access-date=March 29, 2025 |pages= |issn=0360-4918 |doi=10.1111/psq.12511 |url-status=live }} An academic consensus across multiple studies has characterized him as having "very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism".{{Cite journal |last1=Nai |first1=Alessandro |last2=Maier |first2=Jürgen |date=2021 |title=Can anyone be objective about Donald Trump? Assessing the personality of political figures |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2019.1632318#abstract |journal=Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties |volume=31 |issue=3 |access-date=December 14, 2024 |page=285 |issn=1745-7289 |doi=10.1080/17457289.2019.1632318 |quote=Across different academic studies, a consensus seems to emerge regarding the 'off the charts' personality of Donald Trump, which is often characterized by very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism.|hdl=11245.1/7842a14d-92fd-4d6c-9e32-37be1331ed53 |hdl-access=free }} Such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.{{Cite journal |last=Piccorelli |first=Justin T. |last2=Cawley |first2=R. McGreggor |date=December 2022 |title=The Case of Donald Trump and the Goldwater Rule: Politics and Professional Ethics Intertwined |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10659129211004785 |journal=Political Research Quarterly |language=en |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=1313–1320 |doi=10.1177/10659129211004785 |issn=1065-9129}}}} BootsED (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|I'm re-opening this section}} - And yet you didn't re-open anything. What am I missing? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:And I still think we need RfC for anything regarding the man's mind. That's extremely sensitive territory and not to be entered based on agreement by a handful of editors. If you're doing pre-RfC workshopping, great. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Should have been more specific. I meant that I was "re-opening" the discussion of this following the closure of the section above as one sentence violated Consensus Item 39. Admin Valereee has already stated their opinion that the above text passes Consensus Item 39, so this "re-opening" of the above discussion shouldn't require an RfC to alter #39. BootsED (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That it doesn't violate #39 doesn't mean it doesn't need RfC. Thought experiment: Pretend for a moment that #39 doesn't exist. Would your proposed content need RfC? In my view, absolutely. It's {{tq|extremely sensitive territory and not to be entered based on agreement by a handful of editors.}} But I don't run the place, and so far it appears that nobody else cares. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would agree that in order to add something that has long consensus against adding at a highly contentious topic, an extremely well-formatted RfC is probably needed. BootsED, it's not an RfC to alter #39, it's an RfC to add this content, which you've arguably revised to comply with #39. A very small handful of people discussing is not enough to add, even if among you there's consensus. I'd advise you to use this discussion to workshop your language for that RfC so that you can deal with any immediate objections to language. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. If anyone here wishes to assist to workshop this language, please let me know. I will refine the proposal and submit it for an RfC in the future. BootsED (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|BootsED}} Thanks. Is there a case for keeping this pinned? Nobody is jumping in for said workshopping. If they do, that should be enough to prevent auto-archival. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{sources-talk}}

Valeree, I would kindly request that your closure of the above discussion "Expanding on health section" be reverted. Consensus Item #39 explicitly states that "this does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness" and that "this does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office". The above proposal at no point claimed that Trump suffered from any mental illness. It was explicitly about the extensive media coverage and academic discussion of it and concerns about his fitness for office. Your closure thus violated Consensus Item #39, which states that there shall not be any prohibition regarding "bringing up for discussion" this topic.

Should this closure stand, you will have clarified that Consensus Item #39 applies to not only that we cannot state that Trump suffers from an mental illness without an MEDRS-level source (which is reasonable and already prohibited per WP:BLP), but also that there can also be no discussion about whether to even include any information about his mental fitness or temperament for office unless such information comes from an MEDRS-level source. For example, this would mean that Joe Biden's page could not include any mention about his age concerns of cognitive decline and mental fitness, as such discussion does not come from an MEDRS-level source. As no MEDRS-level source will ever be released for either Trump or Biden, this would serve as a de facto ban on any mention of media coverage and debate about mental health and fitness for office only on this page, even though an entirely separate page extensively covers this topic without any MEDRS-level sources. BootsED (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:You should read the two RFCs that came up with the prohibition. Also consensus here only applies to here and not other articles like Boden's article. Though I personally would support it there as well. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Will defer early manual archival of the other thread pending a resolution, pinning it if that becomes necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:BootsED, your proposed addition included {{xt|Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family.}}, sourced to the New Republic, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. None of those are MEDRS. You could propose the rest of that passage, {{xt|Trump has been described by researchers as having an "off-the-charts" personality and campaigning style when compared to other world leaders. An academic consensus across multiple studies has characterized him as having "very high extraversion, very low agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and sky-high narcissism". Such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.}}, although I'd highly recommend more clarity on the type of researchers and academic studies, which all seem to be non-medical researchers/non-medical studies being reported in political journals, not medical journals. Valereee (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Seems to me this is morphing into a continuation of the other thread. You're discussing content in a thread about process. If you want to discuss content, close this thread and re-open the other one. IMO. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm discussing consensus item #39, which states {{xt|Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office.}} The distinction I'm making is that one of the sentences proposed in that RfC discusses speculated specific medical diagnoses without MEDRS or formal diagnosis, so is not okay even to discuss under item 39, and the other three discuss the speculation in the media, which is okay to discuss inclusion of. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::But you're suggesting improvements, I think, which gets us into content territory. AFAICT, what you're doing here is no different from participating in the other thread, suggesting changes to the proposed text per item 39. And if we ultimately reach some list-worthy consensus, the list item will have to link to both threads to fully document the consensus. Ah well, enough from our local process/organization wonk. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edited after reply per WP:REDACT. Stricken comment no longer applies after making this a subsection of "the other thread". 02:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I'm suggesting removing from their proposal the part of the discussion that isn't allowed and, if they choose, start a new discussion. I have zero opinion on the language editors here agree on, or whether to include or not. I just am saying they can discuss A, but not B. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I will agree with Mandruss on this one, this topic has become about the content. If you wanted to say that the one sentence wasn't allowed, you didn't need to close the entire discussion if the majority of it was fine. Also, if you read through the discussion, you would've seen that the sentence you took issue with in particular was changed and has different sources now used after another editor brought up a similar point. BootsED (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The sources currently used are New Republic, Washington Post, and New York Times, which are not MEDRS. If you would like to strike that entire sentence, go ahead and reopen, but if the discussion goes anywhere near diagnosis of mental illness again, I'd have to reclose and once again direct you to start fresh with something that can be fully discussed. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Again, the sentence was changed and that is not the current sentence under discussion, and different sources are used. There is no claim that Trump has a certain diagnosis.

::::::::Would changing the sentence to "{{tq2|While some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging, such claims have prompted discussion about ethics and applicability of the Goldwater rule, which prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination.}}" By merging the sentence about the Goldwater rule into the sentence about the intense media coverage, we would both acknowledge and cover the widespread discussion about Trump's mental health by qualified psychologists while also noting the criticism of such speculation in a more direct manner.

::::::::The proposed discussion about the Goldwater rule is currently in a separate sentence right afterwards instead of the same one, which coupled with the lack of the word "some" may lead readers to believe the speculation is more concrete than in reality." I also believe this is notable as part of the public image of Trump due to a plethora of RS that discuss this. It's a very notable part of Trump's biography. Otherwise I'll abide and remove the sentence itself. BootsED (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::BootsEd, you say {{xt|Again, the sentence was changed and that is not the current sentence under discussion, and different sources are used. There is no claim that Trump has a certain diagnosis.}} The existing proposal, which you wrote, says "Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or dementia, which runs in his family." And it is sourced to New Republic, WaPo, NYT. It is still sitting right there in the proposal. If you've changed it, you need to strike out from the proposal what has been removed and insert whatever you think you've changed it to. And if you're talking about {{xt|Some psychiatrists and the media have speculated that he may have mental health impairments, such as narcissistic personality disorder or cognitive decline due to aging}}, that is still discussing specific mental health diagnoses, sourced to The Independent and WaPo, which are not MEDRS. And IMO, no, the revision you're suggesting here also isn't following consensus, because, and I feel like a broken record here, you are still talking about specific mental health diagnoses without MEDRS and without an announced diagnosis.

:::::::::I feel like you are trying to game consensus, here. That is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is not my intention to game consensus, and if that is the impression I deeply apologize. I did not strike out that sentence above, which I realize now, which is why I think we were confused earlier. I also agree with Goldsztajn that the current wording of the Consensus Item is murky and can clearly be interpreted two ways, which is probably why we both sound like broken records. I will retract this sentence, as I can see where you and others are coming from. I will see about finding some better sources and presenting more specific discussion about that item in a separate discussion or RfC in the coming weeks. BootsED (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@BootsED - I need to clarify my statement because you've slightly misconstrued what I said (or, more likely, I've just not written it clearly enough). I was not indicating that I thought the conclusion of the RFC was "murky", I was stating that "applying the consensus of the previous RFC" to the current proposal produces a murky result because of the way the text interwove comments about Trump's character with health diagnoses. For what it's worth, I think the last sentence (mention of the Goldwater rule) also enters into the murky area. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah, I wondered about whether it was kosher for editors here to discuss {{xt|prohibits mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures without direct examination}} w/re #39, but I think it might squeak past as long as those discussing are focussing on the media coverage rather than the specific diagnoses. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Apologies! I have removed the sentence in question. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved admin. I understand where the discussants are coming from, but the difficulty here is that applying the consensus of the previous RFC (which no one here disputes) between the need for a MERDS level diagnosis and media speculation about fitness for office is murky with the current proposal. Valereee is within their discretion to determine that this proposal uses language which interweaves media speculation on fitness for office with diagnosis of health and thus not appropriate. Valereee is suggesting a new proposal is needed which more explicitly discusses media speculation over fitness for office without implying health (broadly defined) status. I think it's a reasonable conclusion they've made. I read their suggestions towards the content of a new proposal as a good faith effort to assist editors, but it is not unreasonable that some editors did not see this the same way. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Should the last paragraph in the lead mention that there are concerns about a constitutional crisis and that Trump's actions remain controversial (despite that every modern U.S. politician's actions are controversial)? GN22 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would oppose inclusion of any mention of a constitutional crisis, as I believe it would be undue weight. Would support a "controversial" inclusion but only if many reliable sources (preferably academic sources) describe him as such. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Insufficient material in main body of article for inclusion at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{small|Original heading: "Seriously". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)}}

@Mandruss Donald Trump isn't from Palm Beach, Florida? May I quote these guidelines[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people]- 'Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals who were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city.' Trump has been living part-time in Palm Beach for 30 years. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:To what do you refer? Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your linked guidelines say nothing about categories. And they are talking about articles about cities, not individuals. Apparently, they want you to include individuals who are not "from" that city, in addition to individuals who are.{{pb}}I lived in Dallas, Texas, for 30 years but would never say I'm "from" Dallas. I'm from Oklahoma, having been born and raised there. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I am not sure that is a universal attitude. what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Depends on the context. Small talk with strangers while waiting in line at Disneyland — they're probably not asking where you were born and raised. Karl Hoblitzelle, born and raised in St. Louis, MO, settled in Dallas, TX, when he was 41. Categories: People from St. Louis, People from Dallas, Business people from Texas, Philanthropists from Texas. WP editors appear to define "People from" as "having been born/lived/died there". Trump declared Mar-a-Lago to be his primary residence in 2019, so IMO both "People from Jamaica, Queens" and "People from Palm Beach, Florida" are justified per WP:PEOPLECAT and WP:OCLOCATION. I have my doubts about 20th-century American non-fiction writers, 21st-century American non-fiction writers, 21st-century Florida politicians, 21st-century New York (state) politicians, American anti-communists, and others, but those are different and probably futile discussions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{u|HAL333}}. You asked what does the following mean? {{tq|"Fred Trump paid his children each about $20,000 a year, equivalent to $265,000 a year in 2024. Trump was a millionaire at age eight by contemporary standards."}}

Here the word contemporary refers to the present day, reflecting the meaning I've encountered the most often. I notice contemporary can have other meanings. Is that what confused you? I think the preceding sentence makes the meaning in this context very clear: "equivalent to $265,000 a year in 2024". I would prefer not to accentuate the inflation adjustment by repeating it, because previous editors have guided me not to do that with income. What wording would satisfy you? How about "...at age eight by present-day standards."? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:The wording is confusing, which is made worse by the fact that this piece of information is unusual and not really like anything I have ever read or would expect to see in a biography. It should be made clear that Trump inherited a lot of wealth from his father and was not "self-made", but not in this obviously and excessively pointed way. — Goszei (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do we even need to say this? It seems a little inane. Riposte97 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't see this discussion until after I edited the article. The text now reads, "Trump was a millionaire in inflation-adjusted dollars by age eight." I just noticed that "millionaire in today's dollars by age 8" isn't in the book, it's in two NY Times articles from 2018 (archived urls [https://web.archive.org/web/20181002195816/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html Tax scheme] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20181002202711/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/trump-family-wealth.html Wealth]) Per the articles: {{tq|By age 3, Mr. Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's empire. He was a millionaire by age 8.}} The book says, {{tq|The roughly $20,000 a year paid to each of his children was the equivalent of about $265,000 in 2024. In postwar America, it was enough money to put each of the young Trump children in league with the wealthiest adults in the nation. At the time, only 3 percent of American families earned $10,000 or more a year.}} Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Inflation-adjusted to what year? If we wait long enough, he will have been a billionaire by age eight in inflation-adjusted dollars. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::(What have you heard? Time to buy gold and stick it under the mattress or floorboards?) "In 2024 dollars"? Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The main thing of interest to me—which assuredly {{tq|is unusual and not really like anything I have ever read or would expect to see in a biography}}—is that the father made his toddler a landlord to evade his taxes. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The now updated inflation-adjusted value is much more clear. I'm content. ~ HAL333 13:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Withdrawn by the OP. No other support for proposal. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{small|Original heading: "Request to add to Donald Trump's inbox". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I’d like to propose that the conventions surround Donald Trump’s Wikipedia page be changed to allow for the expansion of his infobox to include his roles as Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission, Special Advisor to the President’s Council for Physical Fitness and Sports, and membership on the President’s Council for International Youth Exchange. Regardless of the extent of his involvement, it is important to include all public positions he held in the past leading up to his election as U.S. president as it provides relevant context to his political career, with the infobox being the most visible source on Trump’s page that viewers eyes would like gravitate towards first.

There is already an established precedent when including public positions in an individual’s Wikipedia page and respective infobox to include the position, even if there isn’t much media content explained during their tenure. All three roles are already mentioned and elaborated on in the page explaining Donald Trump’s early political career, with cited sources being included from the Ronald Regan Presidential Library, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Morning Call amongst others within said page. Also, there is already precedent for positions such as special advisor and member of a federal advisory committee to be included in the infobox of a public figure who became involved in public service, such is the case of Susan S. Jacobs and Judith Heumann for the former and Katie Miller for the latter.

Below is the draft infobox:

{{cot|{{small|Draft infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)}}}}

{{Infobox officeholder

| image = TrumpPortrait.jpg

| alt = Official White House presidential portrait. Head shot of Trump smiling in front of the U.S. flag, wearing a dark blue suit jacket with American flag lapel pin, white shirt, and light blue necktie.

| caption = Official portrait, 2025

| office = 45th and 47th President of the United States

| vicepresident = JD Vance

| term_start = January 20, 2025

| term_end =

| predecessor = Joe Biden

| successor =

| vicepresident1 = Mike Pence

| term_start1 = January 20, 2017

| term_end1 = January 20, 2021

| predecessor1 = Barack Obama

| successor1 = Joe Biden

| office2 = Member of the President’s Council for International Youth Exchange{{efn|Appointed amongst 100 members to the President’s Council for International Youth Exchange.}}

| president2 = Ronald Regan

| 1blankname2 = Chairman

| 1namedata2 = Coy G. Eklund

| term_start2 = December 2, 1982

| term_end2 = May 25, 1985

| predecessor2 =

| successor2 =

| office3 = Special Advisor to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports{{efn|Appointed amongst 44 Special Advisors to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.}}

| president3 = Ronald Regan
George H.W. Bush

| 1blankname3 = Chairman

| 1namedata3 = George Allen
Dick Kazmaier
Arnold Schwarzenegger

| term_start3 = February 4, 1982

| term_end3 = September 30, 1991

| predecessor3 =

| successor3 =

| office4 = Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission

| 1blankname4 = Mayor

| 1namedata4 = Ed Koch

| term_start4 = November 5, 1982

| term_end4 = May 31, 1985
Serving with Scott Higgins

| predecessors = Position established

| successor4 = Harry Bridgwood (1999){{efn|As Chairman of the Friends of the Vietnam Veterans Plaza.}}

| birth_name = Donald John Trump

| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|1946|6|14}}

| birth_place = Queens, New York City, U.S.

| party = Republican (1987–1999, 2009–present)

| otherparty = {{ubl

| Reform (1999–2001)

| Democratic (2001–2009)

| Independent (2011–2012)}}

| spouse = {{plainlist|

• {{marriage|Ivana Zelníčková|April 9, 1977|December 11, 1990|end=divorced}}
• {{marriage|Marla Maples|December 20, 1993|June 8, 1999|end=divorced}}
• {{marriage|Melania Knauss|January 22, 2005}}

}}

| children = {{flatlist|

• Donald Jr.
• Ivanka
• Eric
• Tiffany
• Barron

}}

| mother = Mary Anne MacLeod

| father = Fred Trump

| relatives = Trump family

| awards = Full list

| alma_mater = University of Pennsylvania (BS)

| net_worth =

| occupation = {{hlist|Politician|businessman|media personality}}

| signature = Donald Trump (Presidential signature).svg

| signature_alt = Donald J. Trump stylized autograph, in ink

| website = {{#invoke:list|unbulleted|{{URL|https://www.donaldjtrump.com|Campaign website}}|{{URL|https://www.trumplibrary.gov/|Presidential library}}|{{URL|https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/|White House archives}}}}

| module =

}}

{{cob}}

Jasper Chu (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:You were already told why the first of these "positions" was mere pointless fluff. Spots in the infobox should be for actual, meaningful positions held. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I’ll argue that these positions are not fluff but important to contextualizing the political career of Donald Trump, as mentioned in my initial proposal. Even if he wasn’t heavily involved in public service, his actions leading to his appointment to these positions demonstrate the extent to which he attempted to curry favour so as to become politically relevant later in American politics. There is already a precedent on Wikipedia for noted figures with celebrity status who are involved in politics to have positions they’ve held in the public sphere included in their infobox, as is the case with Mehmet Oz and Herschel Walker as co-chairs of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition before being appointed to their current positions in Donald Trump’s second non-consecutive term as U.S. president. Arnold Schwarzenegger also had this position included in his infobox in addition to his post as position as governor of California. The same underlying principle also applies to Sylvester Stallone, Jon Voight, and Mel Gibson in currently serving as Special Ambassadors to Hollywood, in which case, many of these positions are those of special government employees. Jasper Chu (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:↑↑↑ +1 Khajidha. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::What are you trying to say pointing upwards? Jasper Chu (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{yo|Jasper Chu}}, this is the wrong page for this suggestion. This should be discussed over at Template:Donald Trump series. Riposte97 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::No, the template involved is {{tlx|infobox officeholder}}. The series is separate. The OP is not seeking a change to either template, but rather our use of one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ahh apologies. Riposte97 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is the previous discussion of the proposal to add Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam War Memorial Commission to the infobox. The two Reagan administration Presidential Council appointments (Physical Fitness Council: Trump was one of 44; Youth Exchange: Trump wasn't one of the 22 members of the Executive Committee, he was one of 84 (I {{Oldsmiley|roll}} counted) other members) were appointments for donors and prospective donors and fundraisers, and almost all cited sources are primary ones. Of the two secondary sources, one is a 1982 NYT article that doesn't mention Trump, and the other one is a 1987 Morning Call, Allentown, PA, article about Trump giving the commencement address at Lehigh University. It includes the sentence "Trump is special adviser to the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports". IMO none of these three qualifies as a public position, and Infobox and series box already take up a lot of space. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::As I've replied to @Khajidha, these positions are important for contextualizing the political career of Donald Trump, as mentioned in my initial proposal. Even if he wasn’t heavily involved in public service, his actions leading to his appointment the positions I've mentioned above are a demonstratable example of the outcomes of his early efforts to curry favour with Regan so as to become politically relevant later in American politics. There is already a precedent on Wikipedia for noted figures with celebrity status who are involved in politics to have positions they’ve held in the public sphere included in their infobox, as is the case with Mehmet Ozand Herschel Walker as co-chairs of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition before being appointed to their current positions in Donald Trump’s second non-consecutive term as U.S. president. Arnold Schwarzenegger also had this position included in his infobox in addition to his post as position as governor of California. The same underlying principle also applies to Sylvester Stallone, Jon Voight, and Mel Gibson in currently serving as Special Ambassadors to Hollywood, in which case, many of these positions are those of special government employees.

::However, I would like to apologize for the miscounting the membership and special advisor numbers on both Presidential Council, but if otherwise argue that my fundamental point stands. Also, keep in mind that if you're ever worried about the infobox becoming too long, there are dedicated infobox markups to address this. Jasper Chu (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Fluff. Omit. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In what manner do you consider these positions “fluff”? As I’ve mentioned above, these are contextually important positions when it comes to understanding Donald Trump’s political career. While I could understand removing his position as a member of the President’s Council for International Youth Exchange, I’d like to point out that the other two positions I have mentioned have more precedent as cited in my original proposal of this in the thread, especially with the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission. It’s not uncommon to include in the infobox of a public figure with a background of a political donor and/or businessman to be appointed to lead or become the head of a commission, as is the case with JB Pritzker as Chair of the Illinois Human Rights Commission or Herbert Hoover as Chairman of the Commission for Relief in Belgium Jasper Chu (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You have made your points. No one is required to be convinced. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::But don’t I have to convince members in this thread before making any alterations to the infobox? Jasper Chu (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, but per WP:BADGER once you have failed, it is time to stop, as you are not convincing anyone and just wasting users time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Alright, fair enough, but I still think this should be a conversation over the long term. Jasper Chu (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{tq2|Trump's refusal to condemn the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate{{cite news |last1=Olorunnipa |first1=Toluse |author-link1=Toluse Olorunnipa |last2=Wootson |first2=Cleve R. Jr. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-debate-white-supremacist-question/2020/09/30/366df500-02c7-11eb-a2db-417cddf4816a_story.html |title=Trump refused to condemn white supremacists and militia members in presidential debate marked by disputes over race |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 30, 2020 |access-date=December 25, 2024}} and his comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", were attributed to increased recruitment for the pro-Trump group.{{cite news |last=Cheney |first=Kyle |author-link=Kyle Cheney (journalist) |title=Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys leader on Jan. 6, sentenced to 22 years for seditious conspiracy |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/sentencing-enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-00114095 |access-date=December 25, 2024 |work=Politico |date=September 5, 2023}}}}

I think we have that backward, misusing the word "attributed". Rather, I think the increased recruitment was attributed to Trump's "refusal" and "comment". Am I wrong? If not, how should this be fixed? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1285733908 Space4T's edit], for the record. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:No, you're right. Can't speak for {{u|BootsED}}, but I assume [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1265114846 this edit] meant to say what you did. I edited the text to say "were said" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1285215259&oldid=1285214706 too informal and awkward?]). After reading a few other sources on the recruitment surge reported by Politico ([https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041121327/despite-arrests-and-setbacks-far-right-proud-boys-press-new-ambitions NPR], [https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boy-membership-tripled-trump-stand-back-and-stand-by-2022-6 Business Insider], [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-proudboys/ Reuters], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/30/trump-debate-rightwing-celebration/ WaPo]), how do we know? Online boost per WaPo—that's measurable. Increased membership—seems to be mostly self-reported. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::The [https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/sentencing-enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-00114095 Politico] source states that "The group saw a recruitment surge in September 2020 when Trump told them to "stand back and stand by" on a debate stage — a comment that became a rallying cry for Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders." So I think that the statement that the quote was attributed to increased recruitment is accurate. The main page for the Proud Boys states that "Donald Trump's comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", during a presidential debate in September 2020 prior to the 2020 U.S. presidential election was credited with increasing interest and recruitment." I will re-add it to the page and change "attributed" to "credited". BootsED (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Nevermind, I see that the information was added to the body itself. I simply re-added the image but with a more neutral description that simply describes it. BootsED (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{sources-talk}}

Although atypical for Wikipedia I feel like people are going to want to know about did action wise rather than his pre political life. Unless this is like a hard written Wikipedia rule I think it could be good. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:No ones's biography would or should begin in the presidency. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I get your point, but this isn't necessarily his life story though. It's just a page on a information website about details of Trump. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What it is and what it should be are two different things. Don't take bad and create worse. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1285877955][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1285915256]

In most portraits, the head is the only thing that matters. Nobody cares about anything below shoulder level, and that part contains little informational value (number of buttons on the suit coat, etc). Why does Trump's head need to be twice as large (by area) as Biden's and Obama's? Are those portraits insufficient to convey what they look like?{{pb}}We could reduce Trump's portrait until the head sizes are the same, but that would look ridiculous. We certainly don't need it to be this large, and I only reduced it by ten percent (see it with my reduction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1285913955 here]). That should not be controversial; but this is, after all, the Donald Trump BLP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Editor {{u|Rochambeau1783}} added "image_size = 220px" to at least two other official portraits, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=1286010378&oldid=1285805483 George W. Bush] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=1286010722&oldid=1285904179 Barack Obama], with the editsum "Clean up", decreasing the size to about the same size as 0.9. Does it matter? WP uses the official portrait, and Trump's appears to be the mugshot recreation. Thus: big mug. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, it matters per MOS:IMAGESIZE bullet 3. "px" is almost never used anymore, after the creation of the user size preference option (Preferences>Appearance>Files>Thumbnail size). I see you pinged the culprit and I'll let them correct their own errors at other articles. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Was site policy on image width changed? With every single portrait on here now being widened, but Trump is a heavy outlier as one of the only political figures to have an old style cropped headshot.

:::There's also now a huge gap between how the Vance portrait is cropped and Trump's portrait, which really isn't ideal, uniform, or professional. Nickeleh (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Just putting a point on this - Trump is now the only political figure and American President to have an old-style crop on his page. It is a signficant outlier than can be detected as soon as one clicks on his predecessors and successors, who have entirely different crop styles being used. Nickeleh (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia does not crop politicians' portraits AFAIK, certainly not this one. We are using what the White House gave us. But the fact that it's a closer shot than "recent normal" is why it can be reduced a little in size, which is what this thread is about. (I'd favor reducing it a little more, but I know that would be a tougher sell.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I oppose tinkering with the image size in this case. Head-and-shoulders portraits are a common sight in Wikipedia biographies in general, and making the image smaller unnecessarily introduces something for readers to question the reason for. I support using the default size. — Goszei (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is registering 4 out of 5 on my Care-o-meter.{{pb}}Please tell me you don't really think readers are going to notice the difference in image size, let alone question the reason for it. They are more likely to notice that Trump's head is twice the size of Obama's and Biden's heads. I merely reduced it to something a little closer to head size equity, while attending to good aesthetic taste. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think they will notice the smaller size and question it. What they won't question is seeing a standard head-and-shoulders image at the default size, like at LBJ, Nixon, and GW Bush, and for that matter Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, etc. — Goszei (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"Standard" is not a concept I recognize for most situations. I favor "optimal". Putting "standard" before "optimal" produces stagnation and stifles evolution of the encyclopedia. It locks us into things that may or may not be the best we can do, placing an arbitrary cap on quality. Those other articles should change, too, but that's not a prerequisite for changing this one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

24 hour notice that {{u|Mandruss}} is in error to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285413880&oldid=1285408972&title=Donald_Trump revert] this as "overdetail" and a violation of consensus item 37. The value of the US dollar is "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy". I can agree to trimming and realize other measures exist for the dollar's value.

{{tqb|The Wall Street Journal Dollar Index dropped 4.5% in the month since Trump's tariffs took effect. Global investors reconsidered the U.S. dollar, the world's reserve currency.{{cite news |title=The Dollar and the Bond Market’s Ominous Message for Trump |url=https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/us-dollar-treasury-bonds-trade-war-028e8765 |last=Ip |first=Greg |author-link=Greg Ip |date=April 10, 2025 |work=Wall Street Journal}}}}

My feeling is that he took a look at a section that had grown out of control and removed my edit. What remains goes beyond summarizing into careless concision (introducing what Google AI says is ambiguity, lack of clarity, and omission of crucial information). Mandruss, I suggest you review [https://nps.edu/web/gwc/concision this article] about concision from the Naval Postgraduate School.

{{sources-talk}} -SusanLesch (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand and interpret summary style, the remaining paragraph is pretty close to sufficient for this article. We're looking for high-level, general overview, not specific numbers, etc. Anything significantly more should be consigned to sub-articles linked from this one. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your version will not stand. You omit the stock market, the bond market, and US Treasuries. I gave you an unimpeachable source in Greg Ip. Instead, you have 30% covering the WTO. I daresay we'll argue this again. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Your version will not stand.}} I never claimed it's optimal. I claimed that what I removed was excessive detail inconsistent with consensus 37. So why don't I just fix it? Because that's not in my skill set. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The lead of Wikipedia's article on reserve currency may interest you and those who care about Trump's legacy. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I also recommend this article the Wikipedia Library in Foreign Affairs, [https://www-foreignaffairs-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/united-states/how-trump-could-dethrone-dollar "How Trump Could Dethrone the Dollar"]. {{tq|"The true result of a declining dollar will be the demise of the very economic power Trump is attempting to wield."}} -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mandruss is correct. It is not helpful to insert every opinion piece that comes out re Trump. If this does become notable enough to include, we can assess that in the fullness of time. Riposte97 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Noone added opinion pieces. I added China back in for now and removed 3 characters wasted on an initialism. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The Ip piece is opinion. Riposte97 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Mr. Ip is a Pulitzer-winning subject matter expert. His column isn't marked opinion. I am done arguing here, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::He is employed as a commentator. I encourage you to read the article more clearly - it is clearly opinion. In any event, the proposed addition is not due at this time. We are not arguing, your proposal simply does not have support. Riposte97 (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Susan, we have a fundamental disagreement about what this article should be, about what "summary level" actually means here. It's a disagreement that has been ongoing since long before June 2019, when #37 was passed. Maybe it's time to revisit for clarification (separately). Maybe it would be impossible to clarify without creating an arbitrary and unhelpful bright line rule. For now, I'm pretty sure I understand the nuanced intent of #37 (I was here for the history). Unless I'm wrong, only one of us has consensus on their side. A mental shift—a change in mindset and perspective—is needed, and it's not happening enough yet. I understand it's difficult, but #37 was not passed for wall decoration. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think we have any fundamental disagreement and I appreciate your history with this article. (I quit maybe 10 years ago and recently returned.) For the record, [https://apnews.com/article/dollar-trump-tariffs-trade-safe-haven-china-c108fd36a3122f85872ad34ba5f5d977 AP] reported today in an article about reserve currency that the dollar dropped 9% in one measure, the lowest in three years. There've been other sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Today US Treasuries [https://apnews.com/article/stocks-markets-rates-inflation-trump-68a6a7f7765d78d46329abbecfbe0797 yield went up to 4.4%]. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Never mind. [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dollar-will-remain-the-worlds-reserve-currency-for-now-but-stocks-and-bonds-could-keep-struggling-c0288952 Marketwatch] seems to think the dollar isn't in trouble. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

(I came here to be sure that conflict with the press explicit but instead I found a well-written summary that only mentions "certain media outlets". Well done, whoever wrote it.) Why in Political practice and rhetoric, is Meta's settlement for $25 million mentioned in social media, but in the following press section we do not say that Disney (ABC) settled for $16 million? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I just moved the Meta/Facebook "censorship" settlement to Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Lawsuits over social media ban where we also mention Disney's settlement of Trump's defamation lawsuit in the "Defamation matters" section (Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Lawsuits filed by Trump). Trump filed too many nuisance lawsuits to list them individually in this article. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I found Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration. Where do you suggest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1286745239&oldid=1286740169 Harvard] and the other fifty-odd universities go? Could be Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Education but that article is overflowing. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::An [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1286012564&oldid=1286000338 "Education" section was added] to "Domestic policy" on April 17. It included a subsection on Harvard University; I added Harvard's lawsuit to it earlier today. I also just trimmed the "Background" section and the lead of material that can be found in the articles on Trump's first term and the three elections — I'll see whether those edits get reverted. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|In a rare unanimous consensus, editors decided to omit mention of the 2018–2019 Trump–Kim meetings in the lead. The consensus does not apply to any future such meetings, since it would be impossible to predict the circumstances and outcome. The discussion was open for 21 days and the survey was open for 15 days.{{pb}}This reverses current consensus item 44, switching it from a consensus-to-include to a consensus-to-omit. This is distinct from a cancellation, which would effectively mean no consensus ever existed and the issue would be open to normal BRD editing. If any editor disagrees with this interpretation, I invite them to re-open this discussion for clarification.{{pb}}Otherwise, eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{small|Original heading: "Lede". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Lede is overly critical, despite the obvious controversial nature of the subject, but I don't care that much about this topic. One sentence in particular however was over the top: "and met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un without reaching a deal on denuclearization." Why is it a condition to reach a deal before/after meeting him? This reads like an ideological criticism portrayed in WP voice. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Then why mention it at all, as it achieved nothing? Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm opting not to close this per current consensus item 61. I could probably get away with that since you haven't made "a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article". At least you're not talking about general article bias, which would be an immediate close per #61. You might have a gander at WP:TRUMPRCB, however. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why should a meeting with a foreign leader achieve anything, especially about denuclearization? This is a presumption. I did make a specific, policy-based suggestion: the rephrasing of this sentence in a way that is NPOV; or its removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is NPOV as it discusses its (lack of) impact. What would be POV pushing is to mention it without the context of the result. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Why does it need to have an impact? Foreign leaders can meet without having to achieve anything. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::True, but we do not list every meeting he has ever had, we list this one, and RS has commented on its lack of impact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not what is meant by "specific" in the context of #61. "Please improve this" is not a specific content suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I do kind of get where they're coming from. There may be some missing context but one meeting with one other head of state seems a bit undue to call out in the lede. I'm sure lots of heads of state meet with lots of other heads of state whose countries have nuclear weapons without preconditions surrounding disarmament. To that point, people meet with the President of the United States all the time without him committing to disarming the American nuclear arsenal. What makes this specific meeting significant enough to go into the top of the article? Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, its not significant enough to have in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Should just be removed Kowal2701 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Trump didn't just hold three meetings with Kim in 2018 and 2019, they were denuclearization talks. Lots of publicity, plenty of photo-ops, correspondence billed by Trump as "love letters" from Kim Jong Un. See Donald Trump#Foreign policy and the former summary-level [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1243925457&oldid=1243901148#North_Korea section on North Korea] with numerous RS. There was a rough consensus in 2020 {{tq|to include North Korea in the lead, focused on the meetings with Kim and and some degree of clarification that there haven't been clear results of those meetings}} (consensus 44). Removing part or all of the clause on North Korea requires a new consensus. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::They are called summits rather than denuclearization talks: 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit or the 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit. They could also be described as "de-sanctification" talks. Even if this was true, it should be rephrased to present the issue subjectively rather than objectively. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I propose a rewrite to {{tq|met for talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un}} or similar. In my opinion, this already aligns with consensus 44, since the lack of a concrete result is implied by omission. The current wording takes up too much space in a tight lead, and draws more attention to the failure to reach a deal instead of the fact that the talks took place at all, which is the extraordinary aspect of them that the RS focus on. — Goszei (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree this should be rewritten somehow. If this is about a summit that was supposed to be significant but fizzled then the discussion in the lede should make that clear. As it stands it seems like a befuddling inclusion, even if it's one with some history. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I support removing mention of the meetings from the lead, i.e., superseding/obsoleting consensus 44, once the two current RfCs have concluded. [https://web.archive.org/web/20200612235423/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/world/asia/korea-nuclear-trump-kim.html NY Times, 2020]: {{tq|That bold initiative, once considered Mr. Trump’s signature foreign policy move, is barely mentioned in a White House overwhelmed with other crises. Two years after he enthusiastically declared on Twitter that "there is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," classified assessments and experts outside government conclude that the country’s arsenal is far larger than it was when the leaders held the historic meeting, the first of three. The estimates vary, but most conclude the North has amassed enough fuel for about 20 nuclear weapons in the time since the two men strolled through a garden in Singapore for the ultimate post-Cold War photo opportunity.}} In hindsight, the meetings were much ado about some photo-ops. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Implied by omission? If I didn't know the backstories of both the meetings and how they were mentioned in the lead, I'd be wondering why the "introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" mentions meetings for talks with Kim of all the people Trump met during his four years in office. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would be fine with removing the mention of Kim from the lead entirely as well. My second choice is reducing it as I proposed. — Goszei (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285258263&oldid=1285233462 decent] consensus is better than a weak one but we should still do this properly.

Should consensus 44 (The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results) be overturned and mention of the meetings removed from the lead? Pinging participants in discussion: {{u|Makeandtoss}}, {{u|Slatersteven}}, {{u|Mandruss}}, {{u|Simonm223}}, {{u|Kowal2701}}, {{u|Goszei}}.

• Overturn and remove per my comments in above discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Six !votes supporting overturning concensus 44, no objections so far. Adding this comment to keep this open for another week. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove Kowal2701 (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove as it seems it achieved nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: Its being assumed that this is for both #44 and #32? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Consensus 32 doesn't need to be overturned, IMO — {{u|Mandruss}}? It says "omit", and the lead has omitted "first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader" all along. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sounds about right to me. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Responding to ping. I "participated" on process, not content. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Didn't want you to feel left out. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Gotcha. I woulda done the same. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove, per my comments. — Goszei (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and either remove or considerably rewrite as-is it really isn't clear why this one specific meeting is being mentioned. If it can be contextualized to make it clear why this meeting has such significance then sure. Otherwise cut it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn it's no longer noteworthy. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove Not sure why it needs to be mentioned. He met Kim and nothing happened. BootsED (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove Nothing came of it, and it isn't still relevant. There is no reason to highlight it in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and remove per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Withdrawn by the OP (me). Lead balloon. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The article President of the United States could not be more clear: A presidential term is four years. Trump is now in his second presidency and his third term (more strictly, the first term of his second presidency). We need to get this right.{{pb}}Required changes include the sentence covered by current consensus item 54, which has been factually incorrect since November. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Third term? GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::My mistake, I was somehow thinking he won in 2020. {{small|(A big brain fart, since he couldn't have been elected in 2024 in that case, having served the maximum two terms. I seem to keep getting older.)}}{{pb}}So he's now in his second presidency and his second term (more strictly, the first term of his second presidency). Still, this article is treating "term" as equivalent to "presidency", which is incorrect. Term is four years, even if you get re-elected after four years. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you give us the exact sentence you want changed and your proposed edit? Trump is currently in both his second presidency and his second term, so either word would seem to be appropriate for most phrasings. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's just incorrect and misleading to equate "term" and "presidency" merely because they happen to coincide in this rare situation (so far; what if he's reelected in 2028?). The definition of "term" does not change when there are two presidencies and the first presidency was only four years.

:Presidency section titles back to original version as stated by Mandruss above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|what if he's reelected in 2028}} — would that be his third of fourth term? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC) This was a comment, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1288443174&oldid=1288436132 "interleaved" here], to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=1288412816&oldid=1288412293 unsigned comment] above the table. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|could not be more clear}}—yes, it could. Quotes from President of the United States: "The president is elected indirectly through the Electoral College to a four-year term", "no person who has been elected to two presidential terms may be elected to a third", "two-term presidency of Civil War general Ulysses S. Grant", "re-election to a third and fourth term" don't exactly scream "it's called first, second, nth presidency". Seems to be another case of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1288413562&oldid=1288412690 Not addressed in MOS AFAIK. Just some editors' personal preference]". And it also seems the multiple use of "term" wasn't a problem until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1288263951&oldid=1288263084 I used it] {{Oldsmiley|shocked}}. Presidency can mean both the office of president/governmental institution comprising the office of president and various associated administrative and policymaking agencies and the term during which a president holds office ([https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presidency presidency, definition 1b(1) and (2)], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term term, definition 2a]). My preference is "presidency (first term, second term)". Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::If he won in 2028, you would call 2025–2033 one term. But Barack Obama speaks of "first term" and "second term". As do George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. It can't work both ways. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No. If he were to win in 2028, he would begin his third term in 2029. How are you getting the idea that 2025-2033 would be lumped together as one term? Especially since you point out that such is not done for other presidents.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|How are you getting the idea that 2025-2033 would be lumped together as one term?}} I was addressing Space4T, who recently performed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1288263951 this edit] to section headings. He has been reverted by ErnestKrause, but I don't think his mind has been changed. Following his pattern, if {{tq|he would begin his third term in 2029}} is correct, we would start a whole new level-2 section in 2029, Presidency (third term, 2029–present), with all its subsections. I don't think anybody would think that's a good idea. Even without that problem, I think we still have a definitional problem if we want to be strictly correct. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You want to change those headings bavk? Be my guest. But I still think you are confused as to how a third term would arffect those headers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|If he won in 2028, you would call 2025–2033 one term}} — what?? My bold edit changed "First presidency (2017–2021)" to "Presidency (first term, 2017–2021)" and "Second presidency (2025–present)" to "Presidency (second term, 2025–present)", it was reverted, fine. What I was pointing out above is that "term" is the usual term for the four-year period a candidate is elected to hold the office of president, unless elected for a second four-year term, whether consecutively or nonconsecutively. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The version prior to the 2020 election: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1255636208 November 5]. The sentence was shortened to {{tq|Trump won the 2016 presidential election}}, along with numerous other changes to the paragraph it was in at the time, beginning on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1255806005 November 6]. This version added on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1273484978 February 2]: {{tq2|A political outsider, Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.}} Bold edit on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1284437935&oldid=1284424241 April 7]:{{tq2|As Republican nominee, Trump won the 2016 presidential election against the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.}} Bold edit on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285258433&oldid=1285258263 April 12]:{{tq2|Presenting himself as a political outsider, Trump won the 2016 Republican Party primaries and that year's presidential election in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.}} Reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285380243&oldid=1285358685 April 13] as unnecessary, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1285380243 reverted to the bold edit], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=next&oldid=1285392191 restored here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285406673&oldid=1285405510 here] to longstanding content (Feb 2 version).

Neither {{tq|a political outsider}} nor {{tq|presenting himself as a political outsider}} nor {{tq|in an upset victory}} are supported by the body. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

My preferred version is the shortest one: {{tq|Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.}} Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• I support a longer variation, along the lines of the April 12 edit. It is disorienting and uninformative for a reader to have an abrupt transition from him hosting a reality TV show to winning the U.S. presidency. At minimum, we should state he was a political outsider (adding some of the abundant sources used on his campaign article or the election article to the body), but my preference is also mentioning the Republican primaries (since his victory there is widely described as a shock and "hostile takeover") and how his election win was an upset (a true upset, both in that few predicted it and by the seismic shock to the U.S. and global political environment that it created). This meshes with the later sentence that covers how Trumpism is now dominant in the Republican Party after a few short years (sources often say that he "transformed" or "remade the party in his image"). This was a pivotal moment of his life and also of U.S. history, so it is worth using a few more words to describe it. — Goszei (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with: «Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.» Esterau16 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Esterau16}}, please self-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1285572946&oldid=1285551512 this edit] to the longstanding content while this discussion is ongoing. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why? The description of «political outsider» was added without consensus by a user in February 2025. Prior to that, the article always said Trump won the 2016 election as the Republican nominee Esterau16 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, on February 2 the change to "political outsider" was a bold edit but nobody challenged it at the time. By April 7, nine weeks later, it was the longstanding version. I had problems grasping the concept — see this discussion on my Talk page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:The current version is superior. I could be convinced that Goszei's suggestions be included as well. Space, you are incorrect that Trump's outsider status is unsupported. There is an unfortunate tendency from some to include reams of policy details, yet no context to Trump's political career. This is a biography, after all. Riposte97 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I completely agree with the critique about a focus on policy minutiae vs. broader political significance. Any biography or encyclopedia article about this man should be rooted in, and thus convey to the reader, an understanding of post-2008 economic deterioration for the majority of Americans, the resulting fertile ground for populist rhetoric, how Trump's anti-establishment and nationalist posturing capitalized on that, and of course his fascistic responses to ongoing crises of the system. Without understanding these trends, Trump's rise makes no sense, and any article about it is disjointed. — Goszei (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Where does the body mention Trump's outsider status? If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. I realize that he kept saying that [https://www.nhpr.org/politics/2015-06-18/trump-im-a-businessman-not-a-politician he's a businessman and not a politician] . Except for sources citing him, I've found [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37932280 one BBC article] calling him an "an outsider with no Washington experience" and a few articles from 2019/2020, e.g., [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/21/trump-outsider-incumbent-campaign/ WaPo 2020], saying that he's still running as an outsider despite being president. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you look closely at the first half of this page, you'll notice a section dealing with Donald Trump's business career. It's not OR to describe the body. In any case, don't take my word for it. See: [https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/16/beware-the-outsider-trump-latin-america/ here], [https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-launches-re-election-campaign-presents-himself-as-outsider-and-victim-idUSKCN1TJ11A/ here], and [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/04/opinions/president-george-w-bush-donald-j-trump-brotherhood-unity-brower here]. Is this point really contestable? Riposte97 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What do you mean by {{tq|It's not OR to describe the body}}? What part of the body are {{tq|political outsider}} or {{tq|Presenting himself as a political outsider}} describing? Two of the sources you mention cite Trump's self-presentation: {{tq|running for president of the United States as the ultimate outsider. His campaign message is simple}} (Foreign policy), {{tq|presents himself as outsider and victim}} (Reuters). The third one says he doesn’t play well with the other kids in the "Presidents’ Club" (CNN), i.e., kinda off-topic. MOS:LEAD's "introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" refers to material in the body. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I added the words "presenting himself" to my proposed version in acknowledgment that even if RS don't themselves call him an outsider, they say he "presented" or "cast" or "postured" himself as one, or as an "anti-establishment" or "populist" (as opposed to "elitist") figure, or point out that he is the only U.S. president without prior government or military service. This was one of his core appeals to voters in his 2016 campaign, and forms a central piece of basically any retrospective source on "why he won", even if the specific word "outsider" is not used. I see a lot of material in RS newspapers and Google Scholar by searching variations of what I quoted above. Taking that all together, we should express this general idea in the lead in some manner. — Goszei (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Body first—that's my concern right now. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::In the body, we don't mention Trump in 2016 being or proclaiming himself to be an outsider. Space4TCatHerder🖖 06:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have added a statement and RS to this effect in these edits: Special:Diff/1287540559/1287549992. — Goszei (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)