Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
Living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.
Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other?
A2: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especially since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Only a fraction of talk page consensuses are listed here, but a list item does not increase the force of a consensus. Consensuses do not have expiration dates or half-lives; until modified or canceled, a ten-year-old consensus remains in force as much as one established last week.
This article adheres to WP:CCC (consensus can change). Many of the items in this list have been superseded, amended, or canceled. Before you propose a change to a consensus, read the discussion(s) linked in the list item. Try to understand the arguments.
Do you have new and significant arguments? Merely changing the words, to something with the same meaning as an old argument, is not a new argument.
Has the external (to Wikipedia) situation changed sufficiently to warrant a revisitation of the consensus?
If you can answer "yes" to either of the above questions, your proposal should be well-received. Otherwise, your proposal will likely be resisted as time better spent on other issues. You might see the words "settled issue", and the discussion might be closed early.
If you propose to alter a consensus, clearly explain why a revisitation of the consensus is justified. "I disagree with it", alone, is not a good reason.
Be prepared to produce reliable sources to support your proposal for article change, where appropriate. Better yet, include them in your opening comment.
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as: [[Talk:Donald Trump#Cn|consensus n]], replacing both occurrences of n with the item number. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 per #74.
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)
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.)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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#C61|consensus 61]]. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ~~~~}} [existing thread] {{abot}}
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)
67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He drugs, and that he sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021) Amended (October 2025)
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)
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.
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)
73. Article body includes:
Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein; persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women. Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.
74. This article adheres to WP:EDITREQ. If an edit request is potentially controversial, an editor responds in one of three ways:
:{{subst:EEp|c}} ~~~~, rendering as: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. [your signature]
If the editor prefers a less formal, more personal touch, non-template language to the same effect as above.
Or some combination of the above two, with the template first.Unless someone feels the response was incorrect for the situation (the edit request was not potentially controversial), no comments are posted after the response. Unless there is a good faith challenge in the interim, the thread is manually archived after 24 hours after the response, per #13. (October 2025)
This article generally conforms to MoS guidelines. Where MoS guidelines allow differences between articles at editor discretion, this article uses the conventions listed here.
Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{use mdy dates}} template.
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.
To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
Use unspaced em dash ("—"), not spaced en dash ("–").
For em dash, code the HTML entity —. Do not code:
the actual em dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
the {{em dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
For en dash, code the HTML entity –. Do not code:
the actual en dash character (which is not found on standard keyboards and can be ambiguous in the font used in the edit window) or
the {{en dash}} template (which would unnecessarily consume some of the limited PEIS resource)
Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "this, that, and the other", not "this, that and the other".
In the captions of images that depict Trump, generally omit identification of him; that is, omit his name. We omit the obvious, as image captions should always do. There are rare exceptions where "the obvious" is not so obvious, as at Donald Trump#Wealth (permalink).
|work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
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]].
There are some exceptions where a redirect is more appropriate, such as AP News and NPR News, but be consistent with those exceptions.
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 rarely a good reason to pipe this link.
Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article (known author links are listed below). 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.
In |title= parameters, all-caps "shouting" is converted to title case. "AP FACT CHECK:" becomes "AP Fact Check:".
Per consensus 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. These parameters are |url-status=, |archive-url=, and |archive-date=.
Omit |language= for English-language sources.
Omit |publisher= for news sources.
Omit |location= for news sources.
Omit |issn= for news sources.
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:
Improved readability.
Over all, this tends to allow more line breaks at logical places (between cite parameters).
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:
Any supported date format is acceptable since the templates convert dates to mdy format for display.
For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
The sequence of template parameters is unimportant.
Readable prose size in words– Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.[a] Click [show] to see weeklies.
↑This number is (PEIS limit minus PEIS) divided by 2000. A typical citation in this article contributes about 2,000 bytes to the article's PEIS. While all other template transclusions also contribute to PEIS, they are far fewer in number and their contributions vary widely.This number is a very rough but useful approximation. If it falls below about 40, it's time to start talking about ways to reduce the article's PEIS. (Trimming cited body content is only one of the ways; for another example, we can remove dispensable navboxes at the bottom of the article.) This is more meaningful to editors than showing the PEIS or the number of additional bytes before exceeding the PEIS limit.
Latest comment: 12 days ago19 comments6 people in discussion
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archiveduntil discussion at Village Pump has been closed.
Its one of the most iconic photographs of him, and it does do a good job at highlighting the criminal charges he went through. That's why I think it should be added. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. highlighting the criminal charges he went through — are you referring to Trump's claims of victimhood? I supported adding it, way back in 2023 when it was THE big story but, if I remember correctly, the image police said that WP could use it only once under fair use, and that was in the main article Mug shot of Donald Trump. In the meantime, several other iterations appear to have been uploaded to Commons and WP, and nobody knows or cares whether it's public domain or fair use. In retrospect, three years and a flood of "iconic" Trump pictures later, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE applies. The Georgia case was dismissed — can't tell whether it was with or without justice prejudice. At any rate, it's unlikely that they'll take it up again in 2029. The case has two sentences in Legal issues, without mentioning the mug shot. Space4TCatHerder🖖11:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
So I took a look at the file on Commons and apparently it is in the public domain and was inaccurately said to be under copyright. With that said, I would be in favor of adding it to the page in the "legal affairs" section. It's a historic photo, directly related to the section in question, and features Trump. I would also like to have the assassination photo on here but that one is unfortunately under copyright. BootsED (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You're the mobile account for User:CMBGAMER 2018? I can't figure out from the history of the recreated commons file "File:Donald Trump mugshot.jpg" where this comment originated: Disregard any claims of copyright from the sheriff's office. It is copyfraud. Commons user Moosey98 reviewed Georgia law and determined that it was public domain. But the discussion (whether or not a photograph that's part of Georgia's public record is in the public domain) belongs on the Talk page of the Commons file. Space4TCatHerder🖖17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
With regards to the claimed public domain status of this image, I would prefer something more definitive than the opinion of one editor on Commons. Lacking widespread consensus on this matter, I will repeat my 2023 opinion: "In my opinion, use of this non-free mug shot image in this article violates the content guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content. That guideline disallows "Pictures of people still alive", and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If it's non-free, than WP:NFC#UUI #6 definitely applies, and the image can not be used on this article. The question then is it free or non-free. Perhaps the image on Commons should be placed for deletion to generate consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There seem to be a few cropped versions now, too, all saying "public domain". This appears to be the source:
16:55, 24 May 2026 diff hist 0 File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg Minermatt122514 uploaded a new version of File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg
16:53, 24 May 2026 diff hist −577 File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg No edit summary
16:51, 24 May 2026 diff hist −244 File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg Moosey98 reviewed Georgia law and found that it was in the public domain. The Fulton County Sheriff's office claim of copyright is false and it is copyfraud.
Is there some legal expert that can clarify the status of this image? I'm not sure how this works when copyright is under dispute. BootsED (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No idea. Mugshots apparently are public record in Georgia and can be published until the depicted individual demands the image be taken down. Is a "public record", as defined in O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70, necessarily public domain because they "shall be open for personal inspection and copying" under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71? I pinged the creator of the Georgia public domain template yesterday; they were active on WP since then but haven't responded. Space4TCatHerder🖖19:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Public record" and "public domain" are not the same thing. If the depicted individual can order them to be taken down, that doesn't comply with Creative Commons licensing (which is irrevocable). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Hi people. WP:IMGSIZELEAD states: "The lead image in an infobox should generally not exceed the default size of the infobox. Therefore, it should be no wider than upright=0.9 (equivalent to 228px for most infoboxes, which use the default width of 22em)."
Without resizing the current image is 251px wide, which is too wide if we follow WP:IMGSIZELEAD. With "upright" set to 0.9 we're at 225,9 which is just about okay. @Zaathras: and others, is there a policy-based reason we should deviate from WP:IMGSIZELEAD? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The previous discussion ended without a consensus, and we kept the status quo ante. I also supported 0.9, for aesthetic reasons, not having a clue how to determine the width of the infobox. Space4TCatHerder🖖19:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Robby.is.on: It's known that at least one user (Zaathras) opposes the change, even though they have not commented here. I think that makes this a "no consensus for change" situation (again), and that RfC is the better route. WP:RFCBEFORE is satisfied. An affirmative consensus for change will be far more durable than a default. I currently lack the required motivation; how about you? ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 01:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's unfortunate and bewildering that a local consensus is required to comply with a community consensus (IMGSIZELEAD is policy, not a mere guideline), but it is what it is. This is hardly the first time. ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 01:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's unfortunate and bewildering that a local consensus is required to comply with a community consensus […]. Agreed. I won't be pursue this further, I feel like it's a waste of my time. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Robby.is.on's editsum said "reduce image size" and Zaathras's objection challenged the edit with "no reason for this" which I don't think is a reason for a challenge either. It's unclear to me whether they were (was? — I'm feeling nitpicky today, also ) objecting to the reduction in size or the editsum accompanying it. Robby has since given a reason right here. I realize the previous discussion was only two months ago, but it involved only 6 editors (Mandruss, moi, Goszei, Anythingyouwant, Moxy, John Adams 362) and died by auto-archival. So, Zaathras, what is your objection? And other editors involved in the previous discussion and anyone else reading this, thoughts? According to WP:IMGSIZELEAD, the image "should generally not exceed ... 228px for most infoboxes, which use the default width of 22em", and, according to Anything, this one does by 23px, i.e., it is 251px, assuming that the infobox uses the default width. Space4TCatHerder🖖17:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
As in the last discussion, I oppose using anything other than the bog-standard and default image size here. For logged-out users on desktop using the "Standard" text size (at least when testing on my machine), the infobox is 310px in width and the image is 250px (80% of the width); with the "Small" text size, the measurements are 271px and 250px (92% of the width). I think the wording in the image use policy might be a little confused, the first sentence there seems to refer to avoiding making the image so wide that it forces the infobox to also be wider, but as my cases show a size of "upright=0.9" is not required to do this, nor is this standard respected by default settings.
In my opinion, making the image smaller would introduce an unnecessary inconsistency with other articles. It is more likely that readers would read bias into this discrepancy than understand its apparent purpose in "equalizing" the relative size of his face. — Goszei (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The change you link is only about non-infobox lead images. I agree that the infobox lead image should be at the default size for infobox lead images; there is no good reason (such as a wacky aspect ratio or an environmental portrait that needs the subject bigger) for anything else for this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm getting more confused. The lead image in an infobox should generally not exceed the default size of the infobox. Therefore, it should be no wider than upright=0.9 (equivalent to 228px for most infoboxes, which use the default width of 22em). So the default size for Trump's infobox image is upright=0.9? And we're currently using the thumb as is, i.e., 1.0? Space4TCatHerder🖖21:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
So the default size for Trump's infobox image is upright=0.9? No, according to the policy, the default width of most infoboxen is 22em or 228px. I have never seen that default overridden, and I wouldn't know how to do so. As I understand it, the image should not be so large as to force the infobox to be wider than that default to accommodate it. As currently written, the policy says the way to prevent that is to code upright=0.9 or lower for the image. The question at hand is whether that's correct. ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 22:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
But there's an easy test. If the policy is correct, upright=0.9 should reduce the width of the infobox. It does not. Default upright=1.0, upright=0.9, you can put them in separate browser tabs, toggle between them, and see that the infobox widths are the same. Therefore the policy is incorrect and cannot be used to argue for the change. There are other arguments in my opinion, but they are weaker ones and largely subjective. ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 22:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
It should also be added that he won the FIFA Peace Prize, FIFA's highest honor, awarded by Infantino for the peace he promoted throughout 2025. ~2026-41940-17 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
/s? According to "FIFA" (well, Infantino), it was awarded "on behalf of more than 5 billion soccer fans worldwide" for "exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace and by doing so hav[ing] united people across the world". I haven't seen any RS supporting that narrative. The highest honor awarded by FIFA, if anyone actually cares what FIFA considers to be an honor these days, is the FIFA Order of Merit. Space4TCatHerder🖖16:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm thinking of adding that the 2026 Iran War led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global economic trade, to the lead section. Trump has had a significant role in this, especially his blockade of Iranian ports. GN22 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Trump's actions have been described by researchers as authoritarian,[[DonaldTrumpandfascism|fascistic]],and contributing to [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|democratic backsliding]].
+
Trump's actions have been described by researchers as authoritarianand contributing to [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|democratic backsliding]].
Anything said Putting "fascist" in the lead was not a minor tweak, and the sources specifically refer to rhetoric rather than actions. Analyzing for yourself whether Trump is a fascist based on the degree to which sources describe rhetoric as opposed to actions constitutes a original research violation. We report what WP:RS say, rather than doing original research and coming to our own conclusions. There is an entire article called Donald Trump and fascism with what appears to be over 500 references containing debate amongst researchers as to whether Trump is a fascist. Adding one single hyperlinked word to the lede that in no way introduces any inaccuracies is fully WP:DUE and appropriate. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. Researchers have described him as authoritarian, and researchers have also described him as fascistic. Both are true, and I don't think there's a serious discrepancy between these two labels. In fact, scholars of fascism have often been among the most outspoken against him, e.g., Jason Stanley, Marci Shore, and Mark Bray. I would image the same amount of scholars who consider him authoritarian also consider him fascistic. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The article uses the term "fascist" once, in this sentence in the 2024 presidential election section, based on four sources from 2023 and 2024 about his campaign rhetoric: His rhetoric, calling his political opponents "the enemy", vermin, and fascists, has been described by some historians and scholars as authoritarian, fascist, and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history. That's insufficient to take it to the lead, IMO, per MOS:LEAD ("a summary of [the article's] most important contents") and WP:BLPSTYLE ("Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects"). Donald Trump and fascism also basically says that there is "significant academic and political debate about whether" he is or not. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Correction, sort of: The term is mentioned twice in the same sentence, but the first mention is Trump name-calling his opponents. When did he switch to calling them "communists"? Space4TCatHerder🖖15:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Arguably the Donald Trump and fascism article over-weights the statements of Roger Griffin in order to present an academic dispute as rather more two-sided than it is. But we should generally be cautious with BLPs so I'm divided on this. I mean, I've been saying, for a while, at the other article, that the "debate" has become a lot less debate-like since January 6 within academia but... well... BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The editor who put it there said it was a “minor tweak” but it was not. The cited sources in the article body discuss “rhetoric” whereas the proposed edit discusses “actions”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd venture to say that very little material change to the lead of this article is commonly considered a minor tweak. ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 03:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No updates to 2026 war in Iran section for two months
Latest comment: 23 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion
There have been no updates to the Trump section on the 2026 Iran war for two months since June 1st; it seems that it should be updated for Trump's activities in the region over the last two months? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is not an article for current events. See WP:TRUMPOTA. If the Iran War content already violates this principle, fix it instead of making it worse. Bad stuff attracts more bad stuff. ―Mandruss☎2¢.IMO. 15:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi GoodDay; That edit was adapted from the 2026 Iran War article by CWW. Trump's MOU since June 2026 has lapsed/failed which Trump claimed as a previous success for the Islamabad Memorandum peace effort. Far from ending the war, the actual war has escalated since June 2026 with current broadcast news relating missile strikes from Iran reaching as far as the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt. But not a word about this in the current Trump article. The one sentence edit which I've added yesterday should be re-added to the article in some form which editors can agree on; it is fully sourced. The 2026 Iran War appears to be expanding under Trump as August 2026 begins and this is currently missing in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago7 comments6 people in discussion
To me this article reads like a giant list masquerading as prose. How is it absolutely necessary to mention thirteen things done by Trump during his first term and ten done during his second term (as far as I could count)... in the lead? He still has almost three years left in his second term and the fifth paragraph is already long enough. While I know these additions are decided by consensus, I don't think consensus is infallible. I don't think the average reader, for instance, would be interested in knowing Trump was given a no-penalty sentence considering how many readers visit this article per month, and by extension the English Wikipedia from all around the world. Does anyone else share this same concern, or is there something about this I don't understand? UltraCobson (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are right and wrong, not everything he does is relevant to his biography, but being (successfully) taken to court would be one of them, and that is a part of his life, part of who he is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Covering the top dozen items from his first term and the top dozen items from his second term in this article seems reasonable in and of itself. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
An editor in the preceding discussion, is requesting more information be put into this bio article. Yay just can't please everybody. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not only that, but as a frequent reader and never-editor of this page (because I am terrified of editing this page), I find myself increasingly concerned about the focus. For instance, "Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries" was a huge scandal in his first term, and is given 10 words in the lead. The border wall is given 7 words. But the January 6 Capitol attack, one of the biggest, most consequential events in recent American (and indeed world) history (a freakin self-coup attempt in the biggest military superpower in the modern day) is given 9 words. The text on 2026 Iran war is given 18 words. I understand the impossibility facing the editors here in how to handle all of this, I truly applaud their volunteer work in trying to handle this behemoth, but I'm questioning whether first-term actions even deserve a mention at this point in time, will a border wall really be a big and important thing to Donald Trump's personal biography in 50 years when he literally enriched himself in 18 months in his second term more than 60 years of his prior business life (that IS his personal biography)? I'm not even sure the Iran war deserves a mention in the lead, Trump is sitting annoyed and comfortably at the White House, it's not like he's overseas fighting. With years left in his term, how is the article going to cover USAID deaths, potential Greenland invasion, potential interference in midterms or 2028 elections, dramatic cuts to science, and who knows what else? All I know for sure is, I know Wikipedia editors do truly outstanding work on so many articles, I have faith in the editors here and elsewhere to get things right, but the article in its current status seems stuck in this weird temporary stasis where things from his first term appear just as noteworthy as those in the second, when that is emphatically not the case after an attempted self-coup. ~2026-42771-20 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just changed the redirect to The Trump Organization#Trump first presidency, 2017–2021, the only place I know of where the trust is mentioned. The article doesn't have a section on the second term yet. I don't know why GobsPint set up the redirect in the first place. AFAIK, there was no article named "Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust" or "Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 2014". This article mentions that Trump did not place his assets in a blind trust, as previous presidents had done, but anyone coming here looking for the revocable trust he set up in 2018 won't find it. Space4TCatHerder🖖13:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! "Emphasizing his conflicts with judicial authority, The New York Times said his attempts to expand presidential power are a defining characteristic of his second term." I first read that sentence and thought his conflicts themselves HAD judicial authority, as "with" doesn't properly convey, on that sentence alone, whether the authority refers to the nation's independent judiciary or an authoritarian's judicial forces. The following sentences, the citation and the other sections make it clear that his conflicts are being met with opposing judicial authority, but a slight rephrasing of the sentence itself would simply improve the legibility. Suggested rewriting to "Emphasizing his conflicts with the judiciary, The New York Times said his attempts to expand presidential power are a defining characteristic of his second term." No accidental misreading. Have a nice day! ~2026-42859-82 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Mandruss, the editsum of this rvt says that "present tense] is a clue that this is the wrong article. "Established" is past tense, even if this went unnoticed for months. The temporary no-fly zone already in effect expires on October. The FAA announced the proposal for an indefinite fly-yone on 04/30/2026, the comments period ended June 15, 2026, the FAA announced the permanent zone on July 31, website Simple Flying reported it on August 1. The FAA changing aviation rules just for Trump to include assigning a no-fly zone to protect "persons and property that are important for national security" seems a tad imperial to me. How is a former president and his property important for national security? Space4TCatHerder🖖12:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The current article for both the 1st term and the 2nd term is not clarifying the differences between COI allegations and leaving them ambiguous. There are in genaral three types of COI allegations. The first type is a non-culpable allegation made in the press with or without extensive proof. The second type are COI which are asserted as culpable and for which court cases have been filed either in favor or against Trump; the current article does not distinguish between these. Third is the type of case which is filed and is in process, where the result is still to be determined. The current article should resolve this ambiguity. My try to reflect this in the titles to those 2 sections on COI in the article was reverted over the week-end. Should the Trump article leave the COI comments in the article as ambiguous (the current preference) or should it specify which ones are still in court and which ones were dismissed, culpable or non-culpable? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would rather we did not list anything but proven offenses, where there is an accusation of illegality, or at least where there is an ongoing investigation. We should not list offenses for which he has been found not guilty. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is about renaming the "Conflicts of interest" sections "Alleged conflicts of interest". Your addition of "alleged", my rvt citing the NYT. This isn't about legal culpability, it's about Trump flouting norms previous presidents abided by and the risk of/potential for corruption, per RS. In this context alleged would imply that a given point is inaccurate. Per your cited WP article: A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.Space4TCatHerder🖖16:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
prejudice. At any rate, it's unlikely that they'll take it up again in 2029. The case has two sentences in Legal issues, without mentioning the mug shot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
) objecting to the reduction in size or the editsum accompanying it. Robby has since given a reason right here. I realize the previous discussion was only two months ago, but it involved only 6 editors (Mandruss, moi, Goszei, Anythingyouwant, Moxy, John Adams 362) and died by auto-archival. So, Zaathras, what is your objection? And other editors involved in the previous discussion and anyone else reading this, thoughts? According to WP:IMGSIZELEAD, the image "should generally not exceed ... 228px for most infoboxes, which use the default width of 22em", and, according to Anything, this one does by 23px, i.e., it is 251px, assuming that the infobox uses the default width. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
