Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 214

Archive 210

←

Archive 212

Archive 213

Archive 214

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2026

Change "A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021." to "As a member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021." Loc863 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. — Response per consensus 74. See also consensus 70. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"Fascist" in lede

In this edit, Anythingyouwant deleted an addition I made to the lede:

−

Trump's actions have been described by researchers as authoritarian, [[Donald Trump and fascism|fascistic]], and contributing to [[Democratic backsliding in the United States|democratic backsliding]].

+

Trump's actions have been described by researchers as authoritarian and 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)

As you say there is debate, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There is debate about "authoritarian" too. Why is that permitted? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Its rather less contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Does not appear to belong in lede by BLP. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

explain "Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust" 2014

Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust redirects here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69853458/the-donald-j-trump-revocable-trust-v-capital-one-na/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/05/06/trump-organization-admits-president-still-controls-his-business-in-new-filing/

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/trump-trust

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/px-01016-djt-revocable-trust-acceptance-donald-j.-trump-jan-15-2021.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/0001474506-24-000292-index.htm

Xo4v (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

I added the lawsuit against Capital One to the "The_Trump_Organization" article, with the bank's filing pretty much saying, "our experts suspect money-laundering". Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

No updates to 2026 war in Iran section for two months

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)

Why, what has actually changed? It seems to still reflect the situation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

Save those updates for the 2026 Iran War article. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

We've enough about that war, in this bio article. Nothing significant has changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is the article trying to mention every single thing Trump ever did?

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)

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)

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)

Indeed, this is a massive topic. Yet it has been pruned to the utmost relevant coverage. Hence, this article is tasked with carrying that weight. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is about him, not his presidency. We have First presidency of Donald Trump and Second presidency of Donald Trump for most of that, as well as articles about his legal and business affairs. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)