Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. Superseded by #71

The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

50. Superseded by #70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item. Suggested closure for copy-and-paste:
   {{atop|Please read [[WP:TRUMPRCB]]. Closing per [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}}
   [existing thread]
   {{abot}}
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70. Supersedes #50. First two sentences read:

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

Linking exactly as shown. (February 2025)

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

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

Internal consistency

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

Copy editing

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

1. Use American English, per the {{Use American English}} template. A good American English dictionary is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
2. Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{Use mdy dates}} template.
3. To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example April 12. Since content is often moved around, do this even if the date occurs very early on the line.
4. To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
5. Use unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash (" – "). Do not code the actual em dash character (which can be ambiguous in the code) or the {{emdash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource). Instead, code the HTML entity —.
6. Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
7. Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".

References

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

1. |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
2. Generally, |work= and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[New York Times]]. Code |work=[[Los Angeles Times]], not |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]].
   1. There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
   2. When the article title includes a parenthetical, such as in Time (magazine), pipe the link to drop the parenthetical: |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]. Otherwise, there is never a good reason to pipe this link.
3. Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
4. Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article. Place this immediately after the |last= and |first= parameters for that author. |last1=Baker|first1=Peter|author-link1=Peter Baker (journalist)|last2=Freedman|first2=Dylan.
5. In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP Fact Check:", not "AP FACT CHECK:".
6. Per current consensus item 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date=.
7. Omit |language= for English-language sources.
8. Omit |publisher= for news sources.
9. Omit |location= for news sources.
10. Omit |issn= for news sources.
11. Code a space before the pipe character for each parameter. For example, code: |date=April 12, 2025 |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)—not: |date=April 12, 2025|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist). This provides the following benefits for the edit window and diffs:
    1. Improved readability.
    2. Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
12. Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important (the changes, not the editors:). For example:
    1. Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
    2. For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    3. The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.

Tracking lead size

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

01 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

08 Oct 2024 — 627 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 112 + 121

15 Oct 2024 — 629 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 135

22 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

29 Oct 2024 — 615 = 029 + 101 + 108 + 156 + 100 + 121

---

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 029 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 046 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 043

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 062 + 076 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 056 + 070 + 138 + 142

---

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 053 + 064 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 054 + 062 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 058 + 057 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 058 + 057 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 087 + 060 + 154 + 164

---

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 058 + 060 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 058 + 060 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 046 + 060 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 047 + 084 + 155 + 135 + 071

---

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 044 + 082 + 162 + 147 + 026

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 044 + 079 + 154 + 141 + 057

18 Feb 2025 — 502 = 044 + 081 + 154 + 178 + 045

25 Feb 2025 — 459 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 138 + 045

---

04 Mar 2025 — 457 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 053

11 Mar 2025 — 447 = 040 + 087 + 149 + 128 + 043

18 Mar 2025 — 446 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 129 + 043

25 Mar 2025 — 445 = 040 + 087 + 147 + 128 + 043

---

01 Apr 2025 — 458 = 040 + 087 + 171 + 114 + 046

08 Apr 2025 — 493 = 040 + 104 + 167 + 128 + 054

15 Apr 2025 — 502 = 040 + 101 + 158 + 128 + 075

22 Apr 2025 — 495 = 040 + 110 + 159 + 128 + 058

29 Apr 2025 — 522 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 082

---

06 May 2025 — 534 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 128 + 094

13 May 2025 — 530 = 040 + 113 + 159 + 063 + 090 + 065

20 May 2025 — 529 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 068 + 064 + 088 + 065

27 May 2025 — 528 = 040 + 113 + 091 + 050 + 064 + 087 + 083

---

03 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

10 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

17 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

24 Jun 2025 — 549 = 040 + 112 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

---

01 Jul 2025 — 545 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 086 + 083

08 Jul 2025 — 530 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 077 + 083

15 Jul 2025 — 538 = 040 + 108 + 135 + 087 + 085 + 083

22 Jul 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

29 Jul 2025 — 547 = 040 + 108 + 141 + 087 + 085 + 086

---

Tracking article size

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

01 Oct 2024 — 15,811 – 414,704 – n/a

08 Oct 2024 — 15,823 – 414,725 – n/a

15 Oct 2024 — 15,824 – 415,035 – n/a

22 Oct 2024 — 15,873 – 420,021 – n/a

29 Oct 2024 — 15,822 – 421,276 – n/a

---

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

---

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

---

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

---

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

18 Feb 2025 — 11,180 – 339,836 – 247

25 Feb 2025 — 11,213 – 343,445 – 242

---

04 Mar 2025 — 11,179 – 346,533 – 240

11 Mar 2025 — 11,058 – 343,849 – 243

18 Mar 2025 — 10,787 – 338,465 – 253

25 Mar 2025 — 10,929 – 340,876 – 248

---

01 Apr 2025 — 11,191 – 350,011 – 230

08 Apr 2025 — 11,334 – 356,921 – 217

15 Apr 2025 — 11,443 – 363,611 – 175

22 Apr 2025 — 11,397 – 361,630 – 180

29 Apr 2025 — 11,344 – 361,732 – 180

---

06 May 2025 — 11,537 – 365,243 – 171

13 May 2025 — 11,565 – 365,873 – 171

20 May 2025 — 11,574 – 366,310 – 171

27 May 2025 — 11,636 – 369,056 – 164

---

03 Jun 2025 — 11,678 – 369,696 – 164

10 Jun 2025 — 11,758 – 370,645 – 163

17 Jun 2025 — 11,705 – 370,943 – 160

24 Jun 2025 — 11,650 – 369,162 – 162

---

01 Jul 2025 — 11,622 – 368,483 – 163

08 Jul 2025 — 11,599 – 368,528 – 162

15 Jul 2025 — 11,843 – 373,664 – 152

22 Jul 2025 — 11,978 – 376,726 – 146

29 Jul 2025 — 11,813 – 375,310 – 146

---

Note
Notes

Trump–Epstein

Original heading: "Agenda around Epstein?" ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

OK guys this is getting a little bit crazy.

Epstein and Trump have been together in the news nonstop for like what two weeks now? It's causing a rift in the MAGA movement and is objectively a pretty big deal.

Yet this article seems to have been completely scrubbed of any mention of ol Jeffy Epstein.

Whats up with that? Hard to say that Epstein isn't relevant to Trump at this point. The media coverage coverage and the schism in the movement alone justify a mention.

Or are we going to list everything going on in his presidency in fairly granular detail while completely omitting what has been a pretty major news story with some staying power?

Maybe it's not appropriate but I suspect some folks who are involved with the content on this page have an agenda to keep any mention of Epstein off this page.

If so that is shameful! I'd not then I apologize :) Necrambo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, if this were any other PERSON let alone PRESIDENT, it wouldnt even be a question to include it. Disgusting. JemT2000 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Don't do that again. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I've raised this point several times, going as far as to bring it to a community discussion, but every time the discussion just peters out without a definitive conclusion. The fact that Epstein isn't mentioned at all in this article, despite the fact that he is extensively covered in articles about people who arguably had less substantial dealings with him than Trump, remains a galling double standard.

To be frank, the reluctance of admins to allow mentions of Epstein in this article seems to me like an overcorrection against previous accusations that the article or Wikipedia in general carries an anti-Trump bias. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is whether this article should mention the Epstein thing. Why it currently omits that is irrelevant. Avoid commenting about editors' motives. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I too am baffled by the unexplained absence of any mention of the Epstein scandal on the page. While it is not currently confirmed whether Trump's name appears on the client list or not, it IS relevant to mention that he has declared the Epstein list to be a hoax on multiple occasions, and has been accused by his former "colleague" Elon of appearing on it. One of the things he campaigned on during his third run was releasing the Epstein files. All of this is relevant information, and all of it has been reported on by major news networks, so there is zero excuse for none of it to be mentioned on here. Alex the weeb (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Per arguments to date, I support up to three average-length sentences in the body. Including a link to the appropriate subarticle providing more detail. I oppose anything in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The issues maybe how to represent it, as wp:blp applies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As I see it (OR alerts), there are two versions. There was a list, and Trump is now lying. Or there was never a list, and Trump was lying. The problem is, we cannot know which of those is true. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to say which of those is true. We merely summarize the controversy per RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Which may well end up being way too big for what is an overview of what is (in reality) a recent controversy (well not his links to Epstein, but the controversy surrounding those links). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I said I support up to three average-length sentences. If that's not enough, I support nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:DUE to say something in this article about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, especially in light of the last week or two's developments. I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's article has a three-paragraph subsection on Epstein? Obviously we don't OTHERSTUFF things into existence here, but it is striking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: So would you go so far as to support a three-sentence limit? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we would limit ourselves to three sentences given the breadth of information out there, or why you're pushing for it while acknowledging you lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it). I say we draft some text here and see where consensus is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal poke, but I don't need knowledge of the subject matter to oppose overdetail in this article. We have way too much of that already, we don't need more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a "poke", but just a way of pointing out that this may need more detail than you might want. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If so, my support changes to oppose. I haven't seen many issues that couldn't be summarized/overviewed in three sentences, and I doubt this is one of them. Hell, I could summarize World War II in three sentences if I put my mind to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As good at concision as you may be, that'd be impossible. Back to this topic, Epstein's personal life section has paragraphs about Trump. It's probably UNDUE even for Epstein's bio. I oppose setting a limit on Epstein text for this article at this point because we don't know how far it all will go in the coming weeks, and we should see proposed text before supporting or opposing. But we can start with a brief paragraph of three-or-so sentences. If I have the time and energy, I may try to draft it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

that'd be impossible. Back to this topic - This is not off-topic. I'd say it's an important part of the question.

World War II (1939–1945) was an armed conflict between Nazi Germany, Japan, and their allies (the Axis Powers), and England, the United States, and their allies (the Allied Powers). It arose from Germany's and Japan's desires for expansion, and it saw the first and only use of atomic bombs in war. The Allied Powers were ultimately victorious, resulting in the division of Germany into two states until 1990.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Err, this has had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

What? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well unless you are trying to say "this is what we say about the impact of WW2, so why not mention this here", what were you trying to say by bringing up WW2? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm illustrating that even something as large as WWII can be summarized in three sentences, which Muboshgu says is impossible. If it's possible for WWII, it's certainly possible for Trump-Epstein. The idea that a summary would be useless in this article without details X, Y, and Z is an illusion. This article should be "Here's the general outline of the issue. Click for details." Many readers will choose not to click. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Then write it, and present it for critique. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As much as I hate repeating myself: I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. I generally subscribe to "If you want it done right, do it yourself", but I'm regrettably inadequate to this particular task. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That leaves a lot of important details out, but like I said summarizing WWII is off topic here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's the point. In this article, per current consensus item 37, it's supposed to leave a lot of important details out. Like many similar issues, editors here make two unproven assumptions:

• Most readers will be interested in the details.
• Most readers won't follow a link to a subarticle. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This shows it’s possible to summarise ww2(tho it was the Uk as a whole that was in the conflict not just England and the Holocaust should probably be mentioned in any summary.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. In Clinton's case, there was a whole conspiracy story to contend with. When I looked at the section in March, I thought about deleting all of it because it was one big NPOV violation. I thought better of it because it would probably have all been reinserted. It's now a section about what actually happened, mentioning some of the unverified reports. Somehow Trump escaped that treatment, despite e.g. the video of Epstein and him ogling the dancing cheerleaders at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump quote ("I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life") in the fawning New York magazine article in 2002. Meaning, anything we could have written would have been a trivial detail. That's changing now with additional details (Trump's bawdy birthday letter, the release/non-release/possible partial release of the "Epstein files", the reaction of the MAGA mob, and Trump's reaction to the reaction). It's a developing story, 'though, so WP:NOTNEWS applies. There's no rush. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I think it's important to consider the fact that although Epstein is not mentioned by name in this article, Donald Trump#Racial and gender views does include the following: "At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations."

Meanwhile, we also have a subarticle, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations which has a whole section on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which makes it clear that at least some of the women publicly accusing him of sexual misconduct are doing so in the context of his relationship to Epstein.

The current structure of our multiple articles about Donald Trump make it difficult for readers to navigate and find the information they may be looking for. However if we try to jam everything into this article it will be unwieldy. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. The sexual misconduct article is linked from the section on racial and gender views; but not as prominently as Racial views of Donald Trump which is listed as the main article. Meanwhile Racial views of Donald Trump does not mention anything about the sexual abuse allegations or Epstein (as it shouldn't - it would be off topic there). I don't think the sexual assault allegations or his relationship with Epstein are "views" so I think that is misplaced in that section of this article.

My proposal would be to split Donald Trump#Racial and gender views into two sections; one on racial views, and one on gender and sexuality. I will note that that section on racial and gender views does not discuss his views regarding LGBT topics, which I think are appropriately classed as "gender views" (especially his views on Trans people which have evolved from accepting during the 2016 campaign to openly transphobic now). I think it would be appropriate to have a section roughly equivelent in length to what is left of the current racial and gender views section that breaks out the stuff about his views on women and the sexual assault alegations and discusses it (perhaps with a more explicit mention of Epstein) while also incorporating information on his views on LGBTQ issues. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

section "Public image", subsections "Racial views" and "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct". Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So if no one can be arsed, can we close this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I can be arsed, just not at this exact moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been arsed since I was a boy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Its not clear what direction this Talk page discussion is taking; Trump has just authorized Pam Bondi to release the Epstein file. Should this Talk page discussion be re-done afterthat file is released by Bondi and its contents made open to the government and public? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Trump-Epstein should be summarized at a sufficiently high level that it's not impacted by every new play in the play-by-play. Up to three average-length sentences, which may change as the situation unfolds (i.e., the summary can be updated/reworked as appropriate, but there will probably never be a need for more than three sentences). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This insistence on a three sentence limit seems highly arbitrary and destined to provide an incomplete picture. A summary on the subject that adequately explains why it is relevant to Trump would at the bare minimum have to cover the following:

• Trump and Epstein having been longtime acquaintances.
• Trump repeatedly entertaining the notion of publicizing further material to Epstein's case, before deciding not to in 2025.
• The backlash from parts of Trump's base because of the decision.

Writing a summary with one sentence for each of those points would be an obfuscation in and of itself. It would omit things like a former insider in Trump's administration accusing him of being implicated in the files and personally preventing their publication. It would omit how in Trump's first term, a member of his cabinet resigned over his previous handling of Epstein's case (meaning it had material effect on Trump's government). It would omit the fact that Trump's club and part-time residence is alleged to have been the site for much of Epstein's criminal activity. It wouldn't even leave room for the more recent development of Trump suing WSJ over the salacious birthday letter.

While OTHERSTUFF may not be an inherent reason for a thing to be included in this article, for comparison's sake, the article Nathan Myhrvold devotes five sentences to the subject, and that's for someone whose dealings with Epstein were nowhere close to being of the same public interest as Trump's. The comparison highlights the absurdity of setting a three-sentence limit on how much the subject can be covered. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No, he hasn't authorized Bondi to release the Epstein file. He told Bondi to ask the court to unseal transcripts of Grand Jury testimony. Even if the judges grant the request, the material is going to contain only the evidence against Epstein and possibly Maxwell, i.e., the people prosecutors were going to prosecute, and it's going to be heavily redacted. This article explains it. Excerpt:

Typically, grand jury testimony is neither exhaustive nor fully granular in its detail. It would not include all of the investigative material the F.B.I. seized during its investigation of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, such as the trove of photos found inside a locked safe at his Manhattan townhouse after he was arrested. Instead, it is intended to provide sufficient backup to persuade jurors that there is probable cause that the person under investigation committed a crime. So the best preview of what the testimony might contain is the two indictments against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Those indictments have a narrow focus around Mr. Epstein’s paying underage girls to exploit them sexually, and Ms. Maxwell’s role in facilitating and sometimes participating in the abuse. They do not address Mr. Epstein’s finances or his extensive network of wealthy and prominent friends.

This is Trump's attempt to pacify the MAGAnauts who are upset that their "man on a mission to root out the left lunatic pedophiles" is not releasing the allegedly juicy rest of the Epstein file that Patel, Bongino, Bondi, et al, promised them. "Hey, I tried, but the crooked courts won't let me." Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this story going to lead to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction? If not, then it's not an overly important event, to include. GoodDay (talk)

By that logic, we might as well delete the whole article. After all, none of the events documented in it have led to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction. That's an absurd litmus to place on information being added. TKSnaevarr (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping a lid on being sensationalist or tabloid-like about the subject matter, but we can't just invent shit like "no impeachment means not important" to exclude material. Zaathras (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It might, but how could we know? Nobody here can predict the future --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I just find that it's only the news media, that's overly excited about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump seems plenty excited, the way he tried to bully the faithful into believing him and not their lying eyes, and, when that did not work, trying to placate them by asking the courts to unseal grand jury testimony in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell. See the above link to the NY Times article and the excerpt from it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There are currently 4 full sentences about this matter in the article, with the first sentence of that group being 4-lines long all by itself; that seems excessive coverage. Possibly the section on Epstein could be shortened or even significantly abridged for now, at least until Pam Bondi is able to try to get the file released by the court for everyone to see and to adequately assess. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to Donald Trump#Epstein file? That is something, but it is insufficient. We need to have detail on their personal relationship. Detail can be taken from Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, such as the federal lawsuit that was dismissed, or Trump's famous quote, I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life I'll try to draft something today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This was the pre-rewrite version, after I had removed Musk's opinion. "Friendship": the source says "spent nearly 15 years mingling side-by-side as public friends" — seems more "public relations" to me. The New York Times reported that those who knew them at the time said that they would frequently hit on and compete for young women is too close for comfort to the source (What seemed to draw them together, according to those who knew them at the time, was a common interest in hitting on — and competing for — attractive young women at parties, nightclubs and other private events, and Trump has been doing plenty of unwelcome groping all by his lonesome. MOS:EUPHEMISM, aka vagueness - a favorite of Wikipedians: controversial. The "visible fractures within his support base": remains to be seen. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also Trump retweeting a conspiracy theory in 2019, #ClintonBodyCount. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that pre-rewrite version is a good start. We should say that they were friends, they partied together, there were young women around them when they did, and then they had a falling out, allegedly over a real estate deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Allegedly. A second version: the authors of "The Grifter's Club", four Miami Herald journalists, write that Epstein had tried to solicit the daughter of a club member at the club, the member complained to Trump (i.e., the incident threatened his bottom line, unlike the solicitation of the club employee's daughter), and Trump barred Epstein. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't heard that allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Muboshgu, this is a the 2020 Miami Herald article about the book's authors saying that Epstein was a member of the club until 2007 and a club member telling them about the incident with another club member's daughter. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You keep repeating Trump talking points. See my above edit and the NY Times excerpt I added to it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Who decided this should occupy an entire paragraph of §Domestic policy, 2025–present? Trump knew Epstein from 1990 to 2004. This topic belongs in §Personal life (or §Business career if you insist it come earlier). I agree with ErnestKrause you've devoted entirely too many sentences to Ms. Bondi, the Democrats, and suicide. This is a biography of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This a prime example of the tangent trap I've been referring to, to largely deaf ears. A requires B, or so some editors think. B requires C, and A+C requires D. And so on. Editors simply do not know how to say less. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It should occupy that section because it’s talking about actions taken by this Trump presidency(and his current response to the allegations of .) That length seems fine and needed to cover those details. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The presidency section is exactly where it belongs. If Trump wasn't president and if his officials hadn't made certain announcements (first release coming up, then nothing to see here, move along folks), we wouldn't have the current - uh - excitement. The conspiracy theorists would still be theorizing on TruthSocial, X, and wherever, and the rest of us would be talking about tariffs and ICE raids. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@BootsED:, editors are currently working on updating this, and some here think the material belonged in the second presidency section. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Space4TCatHeder, I've updated the page Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with all the recent reporting and added a new section to this page which is a heavily truncated version of the main page. BootsED (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The only thing we need now is a picture of Donald Trump and Epstein together for the other page that could then be posted here. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have one of the many photographs of them together that are all over the media. We do have one for Bill Clinton and Epstein, apparently. BootsED (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Great! That works for me. Probably best to leave the dismissed lawsuit out of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The picture of Clinton, Epstein, and Maxwell was taken by the WH photographer at a WH event. It's in the public domain, so WP can use it. Trump was a private citizen during the 15 years he and Epstein palled around, so any pictures and videos are unlikely to be in the public domain. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Riposte97, I see you have reverted parts of my edit adding the Jeffrey Epstein section. You stated you thought there was too much information, and that you thought the section itself should be removed absorbed into the business section of the page. I re-added the edit pointing out that there exists an entire three paragraphs on Epstein's relationship to Bill Clinton at Bill Clinton#Relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, and that two small paragraphs on Trump's relationship to Epstein is thus warranted. You reverted this again, saying simply "challenged" and that the Bill Clinton page was "irrelevant".

While I disagree with you, I would still like to hear your reasoning for your edits and open this up for other editors to discuss. I believe that other editors here have already stated they wanted this section to exist, and agreed to some of the content that was added. For instance, Muboshgu stated he thought that information that they partied with young girls and had a falling out should be included. Currently, your edit simply says that they were friends, and doesn't mention their pursuit of young women which is the whole reason this friendship has received so much attention. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The Clinton article is irrelevant here. This article is not governed by editors of other articles. Unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing in policy that supports that kind of reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The Bill Clinton article is relevant because it's also another article about a United States president who had a well-documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Not sure how you can get more relevant than that. I never made any policy claim that one article controls another, but I and other editors here have simply pointed out the seemingly different standards applied to coverage between the two pages on the same topic.

Why should Bill Clinton's article, which is already very long, devote three entire paragraphs to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with extensive detail and quotes from relevant parties when he was more notable for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Why is Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein instead reduced to a small, one-paragraph mention of his friendship that now mostly includes Trump's rebuttal with no mention of why the friendship was controversial (partying with young girls)? Clinton had less contact with Epstein than Trump, so why does he have more coverage on his own page than Trump? And why are some now pushing for the entire section on Trump's relationship with Epstein to be removed or absorbed into other sections of the page? BootsED (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Because two wrongs do not make a right. This is an argument to remove it there, not add it here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It comes down to WP:DUE. I would think that including content on a relationship with Epstein is more DUE for Trump than Clinton, as Trump and Epstein partied with young girls and there is the (dismissed) lawsuit filed against them, while there are no allegations like that about Clinton and Epstein. The argument on this page needs to remain whether or not it's DUE to include the partying with young girls (which again, I believe it is). We can work to cut down the Clinton/Epstein section on that page if it's agreed UNDUE detail is given there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I would propose re-adding the sentence that they were known for partying with young girls, which provides context about why their friendship was controversial and notable other than simply "they were friends". I would also propose re-adding the sentence that they had a falling-out in 2004, otherwise the article suggests that the "15 years" could have been more recent than not. I included the quotations Trump and Epstein made about being "best friends" to better explain the topic, but I have no problems for these quotations to be removed if editors think this makes the page too long. BootsED (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake, my second version is the same as the first. You can edit it to simply remove the Trump quote and Epstein quote, which is what I proposed above. (Update: the post was reverted) BootsED (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Trump suing the WSJ, belongs & is listed in the related article Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Lawsuits filed by Trump with the other defamation lawsuits filed by Trump. I also added the client list conspiracy theory. How can we not mention that? I also don't see what this section might have to do with Trump's business career. Nothing in the sources suggests that they were in business together. I still think this belongs in "Second presidency" since Trump admin officials are responsible for the publicity, but "Personal life" is better than business. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

i agree with your edits but i think the WSJ thing should stay John Bois (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of someone who has a cursory following of US politics, I believe that at least one mention of Jeffrey Epstein should be included in this article. I did a CTRL+F (Command+F for Mac users) and found the name "Epstein" only in cited authors unrelated to the disgraced financier. This article has no mention of Epstein and his associated affairs.

I'm not asking to litigate all the drama here, and I'm not asking you all to do that either. Please, leave all of that that you want to say at the door (maybe put it in a blog post, YouTube comment, or tweet instead). Briefly, the two men were once friends but had a falling out in the 2000s. WP is not the place to have political arguments. I'm here to ask one simple question.

Why does this article not mention Jeffery Epstein? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question a fair few below(not including me I held a different view) decided to wait to include Epstein until the news cycle is over so that would be why he is not included. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

So apparently this was removed again? Is there a reason given? I don't believe there is a consensus here to do so. Also, there is now an entire page on this topic at Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. BootsED (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

BootsED, Riposte removed the entire section with your third version pending topic stability per talk, the next edit reverted the removal, saying work in progress is better than nothing, and this one reverted the revert per "informal consensus" to defer any further discussion "awhile". Two editors agreed (see comments in "Versions" section below the hatted "BootsED's third version"), and the editors who initially supported mentioning Epstein seem to have lost interest and gone away. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I supported and still support Epstein being included I didn’t lose interest(and didn’t go away either.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Versions

The five versions uploaded so far:

Version 1 - My first version:

After she and other Trump officials had for months teased the imminent release of incendiary information (the "Epstein client list") from FBI records of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, U.S Attorney General Pam Bondi stated in a memo released in July 2025 that there was no evidence that Epstein had such a list or that he had blackmailed prominent individuals. The memo also confirmed that Epstein had committed suicide while in custody. The announcement caused an uproar among part of Trump's most fervent supporters who had bought into the conspiracy theory that Epstein was at the center of "a cabal of powerful men and celebrities, largely Democrats" and that the government had covered it up. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax engendered by Democrats, and that supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".

BootsED's first version:

Version 2 - BootsED's first version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Epstein: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life." The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004. In a 2017 recording, Epstein stated that he was "Donald's closest friend for ten years." Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

Riposte97's version:

Version 3 - Riposte97's version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

BootsED's second version:

Version 4 - BootsED's second version

For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Epstein: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life." The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004. In a 2017 recording, Epstein stated that he was "Donald's closest friend for ten years." Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.

My second version, uploaded a short while ago:

Version 5 - My second version

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced that the list would be released after review. In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed; the announcement also confirmed Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting another theory. The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the relationship. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".

Sources

Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Please edit my second version to remove the two quotes. It is currently the same. BootsED (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This evening once I have some more time I'll try to create a combined version of all the above proposals. Hopefully this will work and satisfy everyone. BootsED (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Rmv like this? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! BootsED (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The current content is far too voluminous. This doesn't deserve its own section - a couple of sentences at most. My suggestion would be:

(V e r s i o n 6 Version number added by Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)) - Trump's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has attracted significant media attention. Trump's Justice Department appeared to contradict itself when it stated in July 2025 that Epstein had committed suicide, and did not keep a compromising list of famous pedophiles, contrary to prior statements. This reversal has attracted criticism from within the MAGA movement.[citation]

I reckon this will probably need an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I support your language with a caveat. I suggest we avoid the word "committed", which is controversial at Wikipedia if not discouraged by a guideline. Resistance is futile. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "died by" be acceptable? Riposte97 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There is much to be said for supporting this shorter Riposte97-Mandruss version. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You and others persist in believing, falsely, that (1) most readers care about the details of this purely speculative media overblow, and (2) this will be the interested reader's last stop. To the extent you succeed in making this their last stop, you are actually encouraging ineffective use of the encyclopedia. By reducing views of the subarticles, you are to some extent wasting the immeasurable time spent developing them. Subarticles are not mere afterthoughts. They are an essential part of the encyclopedia. My support for the short version is now strong support. I have no problem with negotiating tweaks, but it should not be made larger. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have seen nothing to suggest it’s false that readers are interested in this in fact I have seen alot of people interested in details on this. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I misread EK's comment as opposition to the short version. My reply stands but is not directed at EK. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok fair enough(though my point about your comment on most readers caring is false stands.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's vague to the point of being obscure, or maybe (word of the week) enigmatic. "Relationship" — were they dating and, if so, when and how long? "Appeared to contradict itself" — that was one heck of an about-face, followed by Trump name-calling his base who, like good little cult foot soldiers, promptly fell back in line. "A compromising list of famous pedophiles" as the link to Jeffrey Epstein client list — if they were already famous for being pedophiles there wouldn't be much left to compromise. Adding BootsED's third version for discussion:

Version 7 - BootsED's third version

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to the client list. In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated she had the list "sitting on my desk" and it would be released after review. In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed and reiterated Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting other theories. The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the past relationship, backlash among Trump's supporters, and conspiracy theories that Trump was in the files. In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters". References

Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Boots did a great job. You've all helped. The article says what needs to be said. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we'll need an RfC to decide between the Boots/Space version and my/Mandruss' version, and also where in the article the mention should go. Does anyone have any other points they want covered off in the RfC before I start it? Riposte97 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Wait until the news cycle is over, it's an extended one. (Frx, CNN just came out with 1993 photos.) The topic will be easy to summarize once it concludes. I object to an RfC to evaluate a moving target. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ditto, we can wait, we do not need to rush into print, we are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I like waiting. That would be an informal consensus to defer discussion for awhile, TBD. This might mean immediate closure of new discussions per this informal consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then we should revert to the status quo ante and remove what was inserted last week while we wait. Riposte97 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to wait we can create a good version of this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What is your hurry? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I just don’t think waiting is necessary we have the information to be able to create(and if need be vote in an rfc) a good section on this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If so, we will still have "the information" after a wait. So what is your hurry? I'm waiting for you to say something like, "Well it's important to get the information out there as soon as possible." Then I can respond, "That's where you're wrong. It is not at all important. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The information being there after a potential wait doesn’t mean we should wait when it’s not necessary and we can create the section now with the info. My answer to why the hurry is what I said before it’s not necessary to wait we have the information to vote or put into the page(I also don't agree that this isn’t important his relationship with Epstein is a fairly important thing.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt a conspiracy theory with a factoid. Epstein had no "client list", per Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald who should know. He had a list of contacts, like you or I might have if we kept our address book in a spreadsheet. (Frx, mine is a mess spread over two sheets of paper both sides.)

Also a note that Ms. Maxwell won't give her deposition until August 11. GothicGolem29, may I suggest we cool our jets? Have you read WP:NOTNP? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Weather it’s a client list or contact list there’s certainly information out there that we can add to this article.

we don’t need to wait for her deposition to include information when there’s plenty already. Yes and I stand by we have enough information to write about this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion. "Wikipedia does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it" is one section in WP:NOTNP. I recommend you read that. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s not disseminating an opinion it’s including information from reliable sources. I have already read that as I said so thanks for your suggestion but I have already done that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of what may be DUE at this point in time, unless WP is located under the proverbial rock, it would be very odd not to have ANY mention of this by RS. DN (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

We have seven proposals so far. I just numbered them for easy reference. Any thoughts or preferences? Notifying everyone who's participated in the discussion: Necrambo, JemT2000, Mandruss, TKSnaevarr, Alex the weeb, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, GothicGolem29, ONUnicorn, ErnestKrause, GoodDay, Zaathras, Not-cheesewhisk3rs, SusanLesch, BootsED, John Bois, Paper Luigi, Riposte97, DN. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the 7th version has all the information that’s needed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The 7th version is good. I don't like the version with the "terrific guy" quotation in full as that doesn't add much to the article for the space it takes. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC) (striked: changed my vote --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC))

Of the 7 options presented, I prefer the 7th option, though I do think it could use some more editing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Support short mention of Epstein. IMO, all versions are too long and hung up on wrangling. Cut the client list that doesn't exist. This would be enough:

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need a short mention. However, I take issue with the 'young women' quote. In the context of Epstein, that is clearly implying Trump is a paedophile. Riposte97 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

"Insinuating" is more apt. I don't know if there was an adultery issue, but there is nothing wrong with a preference for younger women of legal age. So, unless we're insinuating something and hiding behind quotation marks, I don't see the point of that content. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we drop "young" without needless speculation? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm content with any of the proposed versions. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Of the proposed options, option 7 is my choice. I think the focus of the paragraph should be on the Epstein files, not the relationship between the two men. The release of the files was a campaign promise in 2024, and the failure to deliver on that promise should be what gets included here in a subsection under his second presidency. That subsection should have a hatnote linking to the Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein page for further information. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you keep it shorter please? I can agree to the campaign promise but better to wait on the outcome until it is known per WP:NOTNP. We should not have to record all this conspiracy wrangling play by play. #7 discusses at length a client list that doesn't exist, and conflates it with the files. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. Actually, I don't think any of the proposed inclusions for the Epstein debacle are without fault, but number 7 was my preferred version. That said, I have my issues with it. For one, it's skewing too far to recent events, which is why I suggested that it be included in a subsection for the 2nd term of Trump. Secondly, it implies that Trump is connected to Epstein for all the wrong reasons, which is something we don't have concrete proof of. I think that the Epstein mention should be maybe 3 or 4 sentences that have a hatnote to the page I linked above. We don't need to include all the details on this page because it is, to borrow a term, huge.

I'll propose my own version of the paragraph:

During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, and his associates. Trump and Epstein were friends for about 15 years until 2004. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department declared that no further files would be released, contradicting the rhetoric of Trump's campaign as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, who remarked earlier in 2025 that the files were on her desk. Trump has repeatedly denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations.

What do you think? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there are too many versions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe write your own three sentence summary and let it compete? Or are you still self-admittedly ignorant of the topic as you said above? Ignorance of the topic seems at odds with your persistent commenting. You don't seem to like what others are saying but won't provide your own summary? That's rather perplexing... If you have a minute, I'd be genuinely curious why you're so persistently involved in the talk page for this topic even though you have said before you're ignorant of the topic? For me personally, I'd leave it to people who have done at least a little bit of research. Otherwise, it provides something of an appearance of impropriety, yknow? Perhaps you're just interested in form and function in Cheeto's bio? But then why not learn some things about the actual topic at hand? So you can speak with some semblance of authority on the topic in addition to your authority on form and function? You seem to be a dedicated editor and I thank you for that, even if your behavior here is difficult to parse. Second question: now I'm running with this, but assuming you are still self-admittedly ignorant of the topic, why would you logically think it should be shoehorned into three sentences? That attempted argument around WWII felt contrived... Necrambo (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC) Editors are permitted to volunteer our time in any way we see fit, provided we don't violate behavior policy. My interest and aptitude happen to lie in matters of form, not substance, and I'm known for opposing a level of detail that is not appropriate for a one-page biography of an eventful 79-year life. As I've indicated, I am quite confident that Trump-Epstein could be summarized at a sufficiently high level that said summary would fit in three average-length sentences (I don't need to know a lot about the controversy to know that). If it could, it should and interested readers should be required to click for more detail. That's it. The only real reason for more detail in this article is the idea that readers should not be required to click, which is a very bad reason that defeats the purpose of subarticles. Here's a proposal for you: You don't attack my mode of contribution, I don't attack your 40-edit edit history. If you have anything further about me, take it to my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Bravo, Paper Luigi! I move that we make yours an official version. You have my vote. Thank you. -12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Version 8 - Paper Luigi's version:

During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, and his associates. Trump and Epstein were friends for about 15 years until 2004. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department declared that no further files would be released, contradicting the rhetoric of Trump's campaign as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, who remarked earlier in 2025 that the files were on her desk. Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations.

Version 8 is my choice. Ping in case you want to revisit, (GothicGolem29—Not-cheesewhisk3rs—ONUnicorn—GoodDay) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I like Version 8. It is relatively short, sweet, and to the point. A few minor suggested tweaks for clarity:

1. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Epstein died in prison in 2019. - Reason: Having "who died in prison in 2019" in between "Epstein" and "and his associates" interrupts the flow of the sentence and is awkward and slightly confusing to read. I do think the information that Epstein died in 2019 is important context, and should be included in a separate sentence.

2. Trump and Epstein had once been close friends, but their 15 year friendship ended around 2004. - Reason: Again, having the context about their friendship is important, as is the context of its ending. I just think the structure of the proposed sentence is slightly awkward and I'm trying to rectify that, and I want to emphasize the closeness of their relationship.

3. In February 2025 Pam Bondi responded to a question about the promised release of the Epstein files by saying they were on her desk. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department contradicted both Trump's campaign promise and Bondi's February statement when it declared that no further files would be released. - Reason: Break up a run on sentence, clarify the timeline, reduce the repetition of information about the campaign.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: would you mind writing your version here? We can collapse it into version 9. I'd be happy to switch my vote to a copyedited version. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Version 9 - ONUnicorn's edit of Paper Luigi's version:

During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Epstein died in prison in 2019. Trump and Epstein had once been close friends, but their 15 year friendship ended around 2004. In February 2025 Pam Bondi responded to a question about the promised release of the Epstein files by saying they were on her desk. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department contradicted both Trump's campaign promise and Bondi's February statement when it declared that no further files would be released. Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking activities.

Sources

Version 9 is my choice. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Version 9 gets my vote! — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm switching my vote from version 7 to version 9 as it puts less weight on conspiracy theories. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I like version 7 or 8.

But I also want to see Mandruss produce their three sentence version in addition :) Necrambo (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Would any editors like to make a case for versions 1 through 6? If not, we can move forward to adding 7, 8, or 9 to the article. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose these later versions for the simple reason that they remove too much context and detail. For instance, this latest version doesn't even mention that Trump and Epstein were known to hit on and compete to young women, which is part of the reason their friendship is now infamous. It also oddly mentions Trump's 2024 campaign first before their friendship in the 90's. This format would be appropriate for the 2024 campaign page, but not a biography, where his friendship should first be mentioned in chronological order. I would support keeping Version 7, but if someone wanted to trim it further, I would simply merge the last two sentences. BootsED (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm undecided whether a former friendship of two rich, middle-aged leches based on groping young women at events is worth mentioning in the biography of the surviving one who currently happens to be president of the U.S. of A. I object to this sentence in versions 8 and 9 which is not supported by the cited source: Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations (version 8)/activities (version 9). To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been accused by any RS — or by any of our proposed versions — of having been involved in the sex trafficking. The NYT source says that he denied ever having visited Epstein's island "while in the same breath baselessly accusing" Clinton. The conspiracy theory also was trotted out regularly and prominently by Trump and his surrogates and allies during the campaign, with the promise to immediately release the files if he won. For once, some of his followers didn't go along with his change of the narrative, and he responded by attacking them he way he attacks his opponents. Seems an important development. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to criticize 1 to 7 because Boots and Space are among the best writers we have here. But. For "context and details" in this case, quoting Democrats is boring and pedantic, and the conspiracy theories are raised and abated as if they have enduring importance. They don't belong in this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I could support a Version 10, re-adding Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women. and removing Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations (version 8)/activities (version 9). -SusanLesch (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• I didn't realize that this had progressed to a vote and added a single sentence as a placeholder. If anyone wants to revert that, feel free. I will add it here as Version 10:

Version 10: QuicoleJR's version (edited by Mandruss)
Trump had a close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a subject of controversy. The two men reportedly had a falling out in 2004. References

I currently like my Option 10 the best, although Option 7 is my second choice. We shouldn't overdo it, it doesn't need an entire massive paragraph. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have altered the proposal slightly to reflect improvements made by Mandruss in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 7 is the best one in my opinion John Bois (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Artwork by Donald Trump

Donald Trump is also a part-time artist whose works (mostly sketches of New York landmarks), have occasionally sold at auction for sizable sums of money. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. These works have recently attracted a lot of attention since Trump (in response to a story about a birthday card he allegedly sent Jeffrey Epstein, which included a lewd drawing) falsely claimed that he can’t draw.

I wonder if Trump’s artistic output is notable enough to have its own article. Is anyone up to creating Artwork by Donald Trump? If not, since there are already a lot of Trump-related articles on Wikipedia, perhaps the art stuff would work better as a subsection in one of them, or even in the main biography of him (this page). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hardly WP:DUE. He doodles. It's not like he tried to have a career in art, like Hitler, or got much coverage for the art, like Dubya. Catching Donald Trump in a lie ("I never wrote a picture in my life") is just a day ending in y. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

No its not, he is not a famous artist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I oppose a creation of such an article, as he is not notable for being an artist. This is not like Hitler and his art career because he was notable for having one. Meanwhile, Trump very much isn't known for being an artist even amongst his own supporters. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah we don't need a whole article about his amateurish doodles just because he sold one at a charity auction and later lied and said he'd never drawn anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

He sold more than five at auction .

Include here as:

Donald Trump >> Personal life >> Art

with Template:External media

Piñanana (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

at least five[5][6][7][8]

$15,000 for a 2003 city skyline at Sotheby's New York in 2020[9]

$4,480 for George Washington Bridge at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in 2019[10]

$16,000 for a sketch of the Empire State Building at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in October 2017[11][12][13]

$29,184 for 2005 sketch of the New York City skyline at Heritage Auctions, in 2017.[14][15][16]

$20,000 work at Heritage Auctions, in Dec. 2017.[17]

$6,875 sketch of Manhattan’s skyline at Nate D. Sanders Auctions Nov. 2017[18][19]

Not Sold Sketch of the New York City Skyline, Signed and Dated 2004, at Heritage Auctions, in 2019.[20]

Piñanana (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

$8,500 tree with dollar bills falling off of it, signed with a gold sharpie[21][22]

$10,000 (sale starting soon) New York City skyline, auction for Hattie Larlham, a nonprofit foundation[23]

Art review: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jerry-saltz-reviews-trumps-doodles.html

Piñanana (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Girl 💀 Catboy69 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I oppose this John Bois (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to try to make a new article if you can find the sources, but I don't think it could warrant more than a single sentence in this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Rewriting paragraph on legal issues in the lead, mentioning Biden 2024 election withdrawal

Initially called "Rewriting Legal Issues in Lead" Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am implementing a bold edit and opening this discussion to find a consensus to significantly improve the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues. It is a long paragraph in the lead, but only four paragraphs in the body. This does not abide by WP:SUMMARY or WP:DUE. Firstly, Trump's victory over Kamala Harris relates far more to his second presidency than to his legal issues, so I moved that sentence accordingly to the succeeding paragraph, and added the extremely DUE context that Biden withdrew from the race. Second off, Trump's civil cases have received minimal coverage in reliable sources relative to his criminal cases, so they do merit mention inclusion in the lead at all. As for Trump's criminal cases, reliable sources significantly covered Trump's legal issues during Biden's presidency, but that coverage was far less than how much reliable sources covered Trump in general during his first presidency. Yet Trump's criminal cases during Biden's presidency receive around the same weight as Trump's first presidency in the lead of this article. Hence I rewrote the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues to abide by Wikipedia policy, removing the civil cases and trimming some specifics of each criminal case. However, I also added a bit of context to Trump's conviction and Georgia case, because the current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted, and implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted.

Current wording:

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

Proposed wording:

• Four felony indictments were filed against Trump in 2023. The first indictment was for falsifying business records; Trump was found guilty in 2024 and sentenced to a penalty-free discharge, marking the first and only time that a former U.S. president was convicted of a felony. The second and third indictments were dismissed without prejudice in 2024, while the fourth indictment was paused indefinitely.
• (as part of succeeding paragraph) Trump won the 2024 presidential election against Kamala Harris after Biden withdrew from the race. (followed by the rest of the paragraph)

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia, so expanding them is not an option. There has not been an RfC on this topic, so I will also create one if necessary. Bill Williams 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia - Citation needed. I didn't have to look very far to find a slightly longer article, First presidency of Donald Trump. Beware of SWAGs.

Otherwise, I usually like reduction in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Bloated is relative, not based on absolute length. Trump's presidency has much more coverage than Trump himself, so it will have an absolutely longer article. However, this article on Trump himself is relatively more bloated, since many details in this article should solely be included in the article on his presidency. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If you put it that way, I agree. That's consistent with what some of us have been saying for years. Sadly, a consensus that would eliminate the need to fight the same battle for every little issue has been elusive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted. Juries found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud with extensive coverage in media, and he's still on the hook for around $90 million in the former and $350 million in the latter case (both plus interest). Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy". At the same time, you added a play-by-play of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate to the lead, something we don't mention in the body of our "bloated" article. Your version of the criminal cases is not an improvement. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy": I'd like to note that my argument won that RfC, and your argument lost, so I don't know why you are bringing this up now. I also didn't add a "play-by-play" of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate," I added literally five words, because otherwise an uneducated reader will question "why was Harris the nominee if Biden was the previous president and ran in 2024?" And regardless, the 2024 election does not belong in the paragraph about his legal issues. But yes, I will add that to the body instead, since nothing should be in the lead without significant coverage in the body. As for what you said about his civil judgements, your beliefs do not have any significance for this article, because DUE is determined by coverage from reliable sources. And reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible compared to literally everything else in the lead, including his criminal charges, so the civil judgements don't belong in the lead. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I added Biden's withdrawal to the body. Only three sentences, and every other president's article's election sentence has at least a sentence on their opponents. This one requires three because no incumbent president withdrew from an election since LBJ 56 years earlier, so it's necessary context for readers (as determined by the significant coverage of the withdrawal by reliable sources). Bill Williams 18:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

uneducated reader - huh. We didn't mention Biden's 2024 campaign (and we still don't because I reverted that off-topic addition to the "bloated" body, as well). Why would a reader wonder about somebody other than the predecessor running in the election? It happens frequently, e.g., at the end of the second term of every president, also e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson. And if someone does wonder, they can click the name of the predecessor. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible. E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump cites 266 sources, New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization cites 450. Sounds like a lot of attention to me. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Incumbent presidents withdrawing from their reelection campaign doesn't "happen frequently", it only happened twice after the 22nd amendment: 1952 and 1968 (more than 55 and 70 years ago respectively). It wasn't Biden's second term, so those presidents are irrelevant. And readers cannot "click the name of the predecessor" because Biden's name is mentioned nowhere in the 2024 election section of this article. You expect a reader to scroll way up to the top of this article, then click on Biden's name, then read multiple paragraphs, before finally learning that Biden withdrew? Bill Williams 18:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say "withdrew". Why would anyone coming to this page to read about Trump's life look for info on Biden? Predecessor and successor are always mentioned in the infobox. If anyone wants to know more about the 2024 race than the info we provide in our "bloated" article, they can click the link to that article, in the body AND in the lead because the new policy is to link everything that can be linked. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Most readers check this article to learn about everything regarding Trump, not just "Trump's life", whatever that means. Many readers check this article and see the election section and go to that section to learn about the election. The section leaves out by far the biggest thing that happened in the election (Biden withdrawing), so a reader is going to be completely misled as to what happened during that election if they read this article. You're resorting to whataboutisms about how the election article talks about it, but my whole point is that this article has a lengthy 2024 election section and therefore can include a few sentences on Biden's withdrawal. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So "bloated" is relative? by far the biggest thing is conjecture, i.e., your opinion. And the many readers going to the election section will see the link to the main article they can click if they want to know more than our summary-level section provides. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I already said that "bloated" is relative. Adding three important sentences to a lengthy section is not making it more bloated. And "by far the biggest thing" is not conjecture; it takes a few seconds to check Google and see that Biden's poor debate performance, withdrawal from the campaign, and age and health concerns was the most discussed issue regarding the 2024 election from the end of June to the start of November. Almost every reliable source states that Kamala Harris lost primarily due to the negative focus on Biden, irrespective of Harris and Trump's policy proposals and campaigns. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted - nope. It says "convicted in 2024". implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted — we say "is pending". It's paused at the moment pending a court decision on Trump's motion to remove Willis from the prosecution, but it hasn't been dismissed. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump was elected president again in 2024, and plenty of readers do not realize that presidents are inaugurated in January of the following year. As for the Georgia case, it was paused indefinitely, and every reliable source says that it will almost certainly remained paused throughout his presidency. "Is pending" misleads readers into thinking it will continue at some point soon. I simply corrected the wording to "paused indefinitely" because it's accurate and it's the wording that reliable sources use. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The Trump article as a whole could use a better policy for including law suit coverage especially for results; if the results are being excluded from the article then there is little hope of adequately summarizing them in the lede. I'd tried to bring 4 results of legal cases which have been decided in court into the article in early July which was reverted for this: [24]. Its worth discussing and coming up with a better policy for how legal cases are edited/removed from the main Trump article. Bill Williams may also have something to say about the inclusion of the speculative Epstein material which still awaits the release of presently sealed court documents but still receives a full section of coverage in the main article for Trump. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Bill's changes. They clearly rationalise things. Ernest is also correct. If incremental improvements like these keep getting shot down for no good reason, this article will remain low quality. Riposte97 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• oppose a former president being indicted for felonies will always be notable. an opponent change, not so much. ValarianB (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

You clearly aren't opposing my proposal, because I still included plenty about Trump's felony indictments. I just made the language more clear on the felony indictments and removed the mention of Trump's civil charges because they have seen far less coverage than Trump's criminal charges from reliable sources. I also made the election part go in the paragraph about his second administration, since his election relates more to his second administration than to his felony indictments. Whether or not Biden's withdrawal should be included is a different story, but the 2024 election should clearly be its own sentence in the lead, so it's asinine that currently it is only in a sentence about his criminal prosecutions. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Asinine — huh. Should clearly be its own sentence: why? He won the election, and we mention it chronologically in between the lawsuits, indictments, and convictions and the penalty-free discharge and the dismissals without prejudice. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So you think that Trump's victory in the 2024 election, which gave him a second presidency, does not belong in the paragraph about his second presidency? You think that it makes more sense to readers if Trump's 2024 election victory is mentioned in the middle of a paragraph about his civil judgements and criminal indictments? I mean seriously, the articles of all 44 US presidents have a separate sentence for each their elections, except for Washington, who has one sentence mentioning both elections. But as always, you'd prefer we give Trump's article special treatment (or especially negative) to frame the 2024 election in the lead of this article as being all about Trump's civil and criminal trials. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The two issues in this section (legal discussion and/or election discussion) might be better separated and a new thread started for updating the current section in the article titled "2024 Presidential election". That section is not very well written and possibly you have improved wording which you could present for other editors to comment upon for improving that section. You could start a new thread about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The current version is much better and more specific than the proposed rewrite. The lead of Trump's page doesn't need information about Biden's withdrawal. BootsED (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The current version’s timeline is much clearer, while the proposed rewrite clumps events together. Benhatsor (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a forum. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It remains low quality because the main stream media is LIBERAL, and FACEBOOK admitted to SUPPRESSING CONSERVATIVE VIEWS. That influenced what people/media covered. So they wanted to be popular, and chose the algorithm that favored liberal voices. You have have have to get to the TRUTH, and mainstream media does not carry it. They twist items like Social security changes which were part if the TAX reform deductions, not SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS. The liberals will have to wait a year (when actually filing taxes) to see that they DO get to deduct s.s. payments-- maybe then theyll stop believing MSM? ALSO, Trump won against CNN. And most of the baby lawyers cases come from 2 liberal cities, and were overturned by Supreme Court, so stop reporting MSDNC claims that he is OVERSTEPPING his powers. 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC) https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-says-he-received-16-million-payment-after-paramount-lawsuit-settlement-2025-07-22/ 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Secured border in January 2017- January 2020

https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/2023_0818_plcy_enforcement_actions_fy2022.pdf 2600:1700:8290:2040:44B2:7993:AC61:255B (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A, not an RS. B, What is it you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I gotta agree with another user - not a reliable source John Bois (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

50% tariff on Brasil

Hi. In the article's introduction, in the fifth paragraph, it says: "He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries, including large tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico." Please add Brazil to this list, as this person imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, higher than the tariffs imposed on several countries.--Agent010 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead follows body. Body does not mention Brazil. Please provide reliable sources if you want to add content to the body. If that were successful, inclusion in the lead would be a separate question (although it would make sense to me). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Well, since I can't edit the article, I will provide some sources here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (it was endorsed [again] today that US tariffs will take effect on August 1).--Agent010 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Our article currently mentions only the three biggest trading partner of the U.S. Details can be found at Tariffs in the second Trump administration; the threatened 50% tariff on imports from Brazil is mentioned in July–September 2025. This is all still WP:NOTNEWS; the legality of the tariffs is being challenged in court, and maybe Trump will reconsider if someone tells him his MAGA base drinks orange juice, too, and won't want the price to double. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought this article [Donald Trump] mentioned "large tariffs" in general, not necessarily just the US's three largest trading partners, since the tariff for Mexico is 30% and for Canada: 35%, while for Brazil it is 50%.--Agent010 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

To be fair it is widely known that the 50% tariffs are happening on Brazil it’s worth a mention and the backstory of it is worth a mention aswell John Bois (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Early life - University of Southern California

Initial wording:

Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University

based on this Kranish/Fisher sentence: "For a time he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of California-based on his lifelong love of movies-but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home." "Flirted with" USC appears to be based on Trump's "Art of the deal" (see LA Times link, below), "closer to home" on what Trump told Gwenda Blair in an interview (The Trumps, pg. 239). Edited version:

Trump first considered a career as a movie producer. After the University of Southern California rejected him, he enrolled at Fordham University in 1964.

The source for "movie producer" is a 2017 article in the Fordham Observer, a student newspaper. Its author says that Trump "originally wanted to be a movie producer, according to Newsweek" and had been "rejected from the University of Southern California". Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says that post-2013 Newsweek content must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis which we can't do in this case since the author doesn't cite her specific source. According to the LA Times, Trump wrote in "Art of the deal" that he "briefly considered attending USC’s film school" but then "decided real estate was a much better business". Is it likely that Trump had the necessary portfolio of creative work (screenplays, short films, photographs, essays, attended film classes or workshops, etc.) to apply to USC School of Cinematic Arts? A rejected application, for whatever reason, by any school wouldn't appear to be noteworthy enough to make it into an encyclopedia article on Trump's life. I reverted to the initial wording. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Doctor Deep Dive. USC is not UC. Still object to any language that implies he wanted to be an actor (although he might have been a good one, being adept at pretending to be something he's not). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

No deep dive involved, just removing the tarp hiding the pile of Trump-themed books from view (wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea). My first choice is our second-to-last longstanding version: "In 1964, Trump enrolled at Fordham University." Early career aspirations according to Trump is a tad too People magazine for me. I don't know about "adept"—e.g., his persona on the Apprentice "was carefully crafted and manufactured in postproduction to feature a persona of success, leadership, and glamour, despite the raw footage of the reality star that was often 'a disaster'". Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Weird analysis, both of you. Careful Space4Time, Fordham Observer's according to Newsweek refers to "movie producer". Like the source or not, Newsweek did not cover rejection from USC, the Observer did. Because the Observer is the only source I know of for rejection I came back to revert myself (not because rejection doesn't belong here—it may have changed the course of his life). Mandruss, USC is also the University of South Carolina. Why concern us that the University of California is a different school system? Anyway, never mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Re this edit: Hassan is not a reliable source on Trump - see Marc Fisher's review of Hassan's book and Slate's article on Hassan (a case of if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?). The "killer" quote is from Harry Hurt III's "Lost Tycoon". According to Hurt, Fred Trump told his sons, "you are a killer, you are a king" (repeat). Killer: reporting based on Harry Hurt III's "Lost Tycoon" who wrote that Fred Trump told his sons, "You are a killer, you are a king, you are a killer, you are a king ...". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Struck duplicate content. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump self-aggrandizing his past in an interview is not reliable material for the article. In 1964 at the tender age of 18, a kid dreaming about being a film producer is about as lofty as my childhood dream to play center for the Chicago Cubs. Albert Ruddy worked in art direction, went to RAND, then embarked on a producer's career. David O. Selznik was in advertising. Point is that it is a career where one usually does other things first, then transitions. Or you just point a gun at someone. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Space. You are biased against expanding the section Early life and education, no? This is exactly the spot in his life where we can begin to understand Mr. Trump's behavior today. It is entirely within the scope of his biography. You guys decide to sweep his past under the rug. This is my 24 hour notice that I'll restore my edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's how 24-hour BRD works. You can reinsert an edit if nobody objects to it within 24 hours of your talk page message. Both edits have already been objected to on the Talk page. You can't just reset the clock, you need to establish a consensus for reinsertion. Expanding — only if the content is due (WP:WEIGHT) and supported by reliable sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2x: You can't be seriously suggesting that Hurt's quote is better. It is way too long to include, and I notice you didn't add it. I would support a longer version in a footnote if you prefer that. I'm away from my books like Hurt for a couple weeks and was happy to find treatment of both Trump's mother and father within two pages of Hassan.
• I have two items to add, both on Hassan's list of the pattern of authoritarians and cult leaders. (They are: his relationship with his parents, and with his church.) I don't want to follow Hassan's thesis, or even add every mark of the pattern.
• You say Hassan is an "unreliable source" based on your reading of two book reviews. Both reviewers were over-eager to share/gossip about what they know about Hassan's Moonie background. Do our other authors disclose their pasts when they write books we accept as reliable? Do they all exceed Hassan's credentials (PhD, MA, M.Ed., LMHC, NCC)?
• The New York Times has nothing against him, instead a Frank Rich opinion used him a source.
• Not even the Washington Post is opposed to him. Former columnist Jennifer Rubin cited Hassan without finding a need to point at his past cult membership.
• Reddit, my personal favorite, says he is not a quack and has the credentials to say what he says.
• Wikipedia's own reliable sources noticeboard has discussed him at least three times. Clearly there's a problem with his job title. Nobody rejects him out of hand. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Rich and Rubin's articles are opinions, and Rich's opinion is from 1994 and cites Hassan's opinion on the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness — off-topic here. Rubin says that Hassan said to the Atlantic that Trump checked all the boxes of Hassan's "'BITE' model of cult mind control — behavior, information, thought, and emotional control". Two other opinions, the book reviews I cited, disagree. Whether or not Trumpism is a cult or exhibits cult-like behavior — what does that have to do with Trump's childhood? Hassan doesn't have any direct knowledge of any of it — is he attempting long-distance psychoanalysis? We should be sticking to verified fact. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Space, you are unfairly singling out me and this author. Nothing I wrote suggests the word cult. I'm afraid the question of Trumpism being a cult or exhibits cult-like behavior is all in your mind. Hassan isn't doing long-distance psychoanalysis but did mention the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Maybe you've confused the two. I am willing to wager that Maggie Haberman, Susanne Craig, Marc Fisher, Michael Kranish, and Gwenda Blair never set foot in the Trump home yet you recognize their biographies, and all of them attest to Fred Trump's dominating personality. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting a little confused here. You cited Hassan's book The Cult of Trump as the source for the material I reverted: His mother was largely inattentive; his father was a dominant force, repeatedly telling him "You are a killer..." and never to back down. Haberman, Craig, Fisher, Kranish, and Blair are journalists who have interviewed various Trumps and people associated with them (e.g., DJT's classmates). Hassan isn't a journalist and hasn't done such interviews, AFAIK. Fred Trump's authoritarian and abusive child-rearing is described at Fred_Trump#Personal_life, including the killer and king quotes, citing a USA Today article citing a NY Times preview of Michael d'Antonio's book Never enough. No shortage of sources, but is the content due here, as in "Mom inattentive, Dad an ogre, ergo Donald"? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This is approaching the article backwards. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources, we should ensure the article summarizes the main facts about the subject as reported in reliable sources. If most mainstream sources don't mention this when discussing Trump's education, neither should the article. We can't put in every known fact about Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, The Four Deuces. I have done my best to purchase one shelf (so far) of books about Trump. This article has valued gatekeepers but they're wrong on this score. Most attempts to add to this section were met with argument, reversal, and claims that more biography of Trump's youth is WP:UNDUE. I fundamentally disagree with those assessments. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, The Four Deuces. Editors have always done things that wrong way at this article, and I strongly suspect at most political articles. They will stop doing it when it starts costing them something they value, not before. Fact of life. Don't like it? Retire or semi-retire. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Huh? The Four Deuces, who's deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources? Are most mainstream sources reporting Trump's teenage "flirting with the idea" of becoming a producer, and, if they do, are they reporting it as a main fact? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. "is the content due here, as in "Mom inattentive, Dad an ogre, ergo Donald"? Yes, absolutely. I bet every single biography that mentions Fred mentions his influence on Donald. I'm away from my books this month so bear with my citations (I goofed on "you are a killer", I think Fred really said "be a killer".) Baker and Glasser quote Wayne Barrett, Aside from his father, Fred, Cohn was "the most important influence on his early career" We give Mr. Cohn most of a whole paragraph. I don't insist on Hassan as a source but he says everything that should be here, and I don't believe Wikipedia requires reliable sources to be journalists. I propose to re-add this. Your edits would be welcome.

His mother was largely inattentive; his father was a dominant force, repeatedly telling him to be "a killer" and never to back down. Trump absorbed his colossal self-confidence from Norman Vincent Peale, pastor of his church.

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to do more research, and close out this thread. The topic was rejected. Nobody here cares about Donald's youthful movie aspirations. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is enough interest to evade auto-archival, there is enough interest to leave it open. If you can find an uninvolved closer, that's a different matter. WP:RFCL would be overkill. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My summary was embarrassingly wrong. Dr. Hassan isn't wrong but he gives only part of the story. I need another day at the library to right the ship. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Temporary policies should be portrayed as temporary

The lead says:

During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, expanded the Mexico–United States border wall, and enforced a family separation policy on the border.

That’s accurate as to the border wall, but the other two things were soon halted by Trump himself. If you follow the links, the lead sentence for family separation says, “implemented in the United States from 2017 to 2018.”

As for travel ban, the link is to WP’s Executive Order 13679 which says in its opening paragraph, “it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780….” If you follow that last link, it says in the opening paragraph, “placed a 90-day restriction on it entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days.”

So, I agree with how the present lead characterizes building the wall, which happened throughout the first term (and the second). But the other two things were not. So I suggest a very small tweak:

During his first presidency, Trump temporarily imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, expanded the Mexico–United States border wall, and enforced a family separation policy on the border until he ended it.

Thoughts? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Nah, we're good, don't need all the details in the lead. I fixed the wording in the body. The travel ban for people from Syria was indefinite, for people from the other six countries was for four months. That included green card holders, students and others with visas, and pre-approved refugees. He was forced by the courts to make several changes. Public opinion on crying toddlers in wire mesh cages forced him to change the family separations policy, and, AFAIK, due to lack of proper record keeping some of the kids were never reunited with their parents. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for handling sources on this page

At User:Mandruss/sandbox3, I have sandboxed a copy of this page without {{sources-talk}}, {{ref-talk}}, or equivalents. This causes all references used on the page to be listed consolidated at the bottom of the page.

The upside is that we would never have to remember to include one of those templates, and to keep it at the bottom of thread as editors do this. This would be one fewer "overhead item" to think about, one step closer to a simpler environment for all participants on this page.

The downside?

• As far as I can tell, there is zero loss of functionality or usability, unless one wants to ask the question, "What are the references used in this thread alone?" That is not a question I have ever needed to ask.
• If one doesn't understand what's going on, it will appear as if all of the listed refs are used in the last section on the page. Some editors who are unfamiliar with the page will add templates to "fix" the "problem", and they should be reverted. There will not be any urgency to revert them, since the templates won't create a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. I believe that the upside exceeds the downside. These templates are more trouble than they're worth, they do not earn their keep. Something tells me I'll be doing most of the reverting, and that's fine. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• support this would definitely make it easier for the editors John Bois (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I would be curious how this impacts the archives in the long term. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Same as this page. All refs used on an archive page would be dumped at the end of that page. This applies to archive pages created after this change. Preexisting archive pages would be unaffected; I don't propose to remove the templates from those pages. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the page loses readability if you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page for cited refs. Plus, it's probably going to be another internal consistency list item nobody reads. "Trump-Epstein" with its many reftalks will eventually be archived. Many editors don't know how to cite properly in mainspace, let alone on the talk page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you fully understand the issue.

  • Interested in a particular ref? The citation number is a link to it, whether it's listed in the thread or at the bottom of the page. Click it and you go there, no manual scroll required. You can try this in my sandbox, here.
  • Interested in a particular ref? It's shown in a pop-up (tooltip?) when I hover over the citation number, whether it's listed in the thread or at the bottom of the page. Granted, this probably doesn't happen on all platforms, and it requires a certain user preference setting.
  • (For evidence that things work fine when all refs are listed at the bottom of the page, not in each section, follow this link.)
  • Interested in a list comprising only the refs in a particular discussion? Why?

  it's probably going to be another internal consistency list item nobody reads. You're mostly right. I'm sure some editors read Talk:Donald Trump#Internal consistency or just pay attention to editors who do read it. As for the others, a shortage of editor interest has not prevented a high level of internal consistency. (Actually it would be a consensus list item, since the Internal consistency section applies only to the article page.)

  Every major article talk page needs a janitor or two to keep things clean and tidy for the rest, and I've somehow fallen into that role around here. Precious few editors can be bothered to enforce current consensus item 61 in the manner described in the consensus item, for example, despite that all editors should be doing so (it's a consensus). It's a system that has worked fairly well. A little more effort for me means a little less effort for everybody else, yielding a net reduction in collective effort (I call that a victory of team play over self-interest). While I would certainly appreciate any help, I don't need it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  "Trump-Epstein" with its many reftalks will eventually be archived. So?

  Many editors don't know how to cite properly in mainspace, let alone on the talk page. To quote one of your favs: Huh? What does citing properly have to do with where refs are listed? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Prior signature image used on Last Week Tonight

The signature in question that appears to have been used.

Just more informational, doubtful this would be relevant unless an RS picked up on it. A prior signature that I vectorized was used on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver S12E18, during one of the opening segments about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Thought the signature looked familiar, you can see screen grabs from the episode here. Anyways, figured others might find it interesting... =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice work! satkara❈talk 14:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2025

state funeral of former president Jimmy Carter]], where Trump’s interactions with Mike Pence and Barack Obama received significant media attention. 173.165.17.93 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Unsure what change you want made, nor am I sure this is not wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Early life

Norman Vincent Peale has been discussed on this talk page 8 times. I haven't followed closely but think whenever he is added, somebody removes him. Maybe we can find consensus and keep a limited mention. Here's my reasoning, beyond the fact that almost every Trump biography mentions him and many describe him as a charlatan.

• The American President: Detailed Biographies, Historical Timelines from George Washington to Joseph R. Biden, Jr. ISBN 978-1-4549-4317-4 has 16 pages about Donald Trump. Peale got one paragraph.
• Donald Trump: 45th US President ISBN 978-1-5321-9411-5 112 page biography for children and young adults. Peale got a paragraph.
• In the words of Kranish & Fisher, Donald Trump "echoed" Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking which has 10 steps, in his The Art of the Deal which has 11 steps.

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Can you please provide a mockup of what a mention of Peale in this article would look like? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Surely. It's been edited a tad. Here you go. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that one sentence should be fine to include in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Good. Do you mind the footnote? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)