Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• Talk:Donald Trump#Second interim proposal - To decide what the first paragraph should read after the inauguration, to be followed by discussions about further changes.

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

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. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 14 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)

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. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (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)

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) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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)

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. (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. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (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 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. 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. (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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

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. 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

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.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
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)

First paragraph on Inauguration Day

It's highly unlikely anything will happen between now and January 20 that will affect the changes to the first paragraph on that day. Therefore, for the sake of an orderly "transition", I think it makes sense to go ahead and establish a new consensus for that paragraph. paragraph, to be implemented at noon Eastern Standard Time (5 p.m. UTC) on January 20. Otherwise there will be a lot of instability in the most visible part of the article, likely lasting for a number of days.

As a procedural note, any consensus here should modify, not supersede, Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus #17 on the 20th. I think that's preferable to a new list item, as some of the discussions linked in #17 will still apply.

No discussion is needed for the infobox changes on the 20th:

• |term_end=January 20, 2021
• |successor=[[Joe Biden]]

Current first paragraph

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.

Proposed first paragraph

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

• Support as proposer. I am deliberately NOT looking to Barack Obama for guidance (much), per TINO (Trump Is Not Obama). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) (Now supporting the proposal near the bottom of subsection #Devil's advocate alternative.) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• I cannot support the proposed wording. Trump is not like previous presidents who were only/mainly known for being presidents, and who spent the remainder of their days as "retired presidents" (like Bush or Obama). There is no evidence that Trump plans to retire from a public role, and he is known for more than his four years as president. As we have discussed before, he is widely and increasingly seen as a conspiracy theorist (just look at his Twitter account which is almost exclusively devoted to peddling conspiracy theories from far-right Breitbart). A new first sentence would likely need to reflect that he is still active as a political figure and the world's most prominent conspiracy theorist; he is even speculated to possibly establish a far-right TV channel. A more realistic wording would probably read more like Trump is an American far-right politician and conspiracy theorist who served as president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, followed by a sentence about his possible current activities (e.g. if he runs a far-right, Breitbart-like TV channel). --Tataral (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Granted my proposal doesn't say anything about what he is "now" (after the 20th), and it probably should until he no longer is anything in the earthly realm. Open to suggestions there. But good luck getting a consensus for politically loaded labels in the first paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  That Trump is a conspiracy theorist and that he is far-right is not loaded, but reflects the consensus of reliable sources. Especially if Trump becomes a major "media mogul" who runs a Breitbart-like TV channel or other media company, that peddles the kind of material that Breitbart peddles (which isn't much of a stretch considering how he constantly retweets material mostly from Breitbart and similar sources), we cannot leave out what he actually does and how the world perceives him just because he was president for four years in the past. --Tataral (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not going to debate you about consensus of reliable sources, since it's irrelevant here. There are plenty of consensuses of reliable sources that are not reflected in the first paragraph because they don't belong in the first paragraph. Even the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler refrains from such characterizations, and a reader who knew nothing about Hitler would have to read further to discover what a stain on humanity he was. That's called "being encyclopedic". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Trump is not Hitler either. Hitler was only a politician, and did not have a media career before or after politics, like Trump. If Trump now becomes some kind of Alex Jones with his own TV channel, except a thousand times more prominent as a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones, there is no reason not to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in the same way that we describe Alex Jones in the first sentence as "an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist." --Tataral (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Now you're talking in pointlessly speculative "ifs", so I'll await comments from more reasonable editors. This is a discussion about what the first paragraph should say at noon on January 20, not if and when Trump does x, y, or z. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Isn't this just WP:CRYSTAL, what he does or doesn't do after being president shouldn't matter, on inauguration day, which is what the proposal is seemingly referring to, he'll mainly be regarded as an ex-president/ex-businessman. Even in that circumstance, him being a former U.S. president is more notable than him being a conspiracy theorist, so the placement in your proposed text is off the mark. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just do it when Biden actually becomes president, I doubt it's going to much of a struggle. Trump is still the president, using past tense "served" is simply false. Trump could start a war between now and then, did Biden declare it cause Trump is seemingly not the president anymore? Just have some patience, it'll happen eventually. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Reading comprehension on my part needs improvement, yes this is fine for inauguration day but obviously shouldn't see implementation before that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank god you beat my blowtorch response by a few seconds; it wasn't pretty. I have modified the initial comment to hopefully improve clarity on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's a relief, don't use Wikipedia when you just wake up folks. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support- as that's roughly how we do it for the other former US presidents & former US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A stricken !vote, a misplaced alternative proposal, and a discussion about moving it to a new section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. Sums up his life until noon, January 20, 2021, very nicely. As for his future endeavors, he may be too busy with lawsuits he did not initiate to do much else (WP:SPECULATION). And he'll also be househunting; his Mar-a-Lago neighbors are suing for him to stick to the agreement that won't allow him to live there for more than 21 days per year and not more than 7 days at a stretch. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own. Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. His presidency was marked by high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; … - sooo many highlights to choose from. The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job". With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Why not put that in a new subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The proposed new second sentence? That would be OK with me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Not just the second sentence but the entire proposed first paragraph, since it has to be evaluated as a unit. I'll leave the move to you since it's your proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Having a dense moment—you mean adding the proposal as a subsection like "Wikilinks" below? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC) A compromise, for the linkage issue? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Well, yes, I guess you could call it that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not sure what else we'd say at that point. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support He may well do "important", "lead-worthy" things next, but I would argue those would not rise to the level of his presidency and should be summarized later in the lead (if at all, whatever those things may be, etc.). The suggested revised sentence will be fine to start off the lead (the lead of the lead). (Unless there is a coup after noon on the 20th, in which case all bets are off...) Bdushaw (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  This aged like milk. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, ONUnicorn, and Bdushaw: – Please have a look at the two amendments below and comment there if you have an opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've commented on both. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the two suggested revisions: (1) wikilink to Presidency of Donald Trump, per the easier wikilink path to President of the United States than the other way, and (2) "was" rather than "served" per puffery, better NPOV, and shorter. Bdushaw (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal as clear and concise. Trump is mostly known for being president, so that should go first. The rest of his career is adequately summarized by the "Before entering politics" line which has enjoyed a very longstanding consensus. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Meh - it's OK but "was" is better than "served as", and "real estate developer" would be better than "businessman" (more accurate and descriptive). Weak support I guess. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Use "was" not "served as". One of those MOS:EDITORIAL matters. Besides that, yes, the change is fine, though this is not something that needs an RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, the first sentence ought to link to Presidency of Donald Trump, not President of the United States, as the former is more specific and much more likely to be useful to readers. To avoid a MOS:EGG issue, we could make the link over 45th president of the United States rather than just president of the United States. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Consenus already changed that back in July [1]. This way it meets MOS:LINKCLARITY. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We didn't have the option of including "45th" in the link in July, which remedies the egg/clarity issue. The July discussion also had limited participation and suffered from a number of procedural problems (see my comment below it), so it's perfectly ready for revisiting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. Just don't. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I support that, I guess, per much more likely to be useful. Also notable is that a reader can easily navigate Donald Trump -> Presidency of Donald Trump -> President of the United States, but not Donald Trump -> President of the United States -> Presidency of Donald Trump (particularly after January 20). Procedurally, I have no problem with opening up the entire paragraph for CCC discussion, which is one of the reasons to start this a month in advance. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Switched to Oppose below, after further discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as we link to President of the United States in the intros of the other US president bio articles. STOP with trying to make this 'one' article different from the others, in that manner. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but please STOP with insisting that cross-article consistency is the only thing that matters and overrides all other considerations, absent any policy, guideline, or other community consensus that it should have any weight whatsoever. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you leave well enough alone. If this were a hard-cover encyclopedia? an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals like Sdkb's. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you leave well enough alone. Well, we disagree that it's "well enough". Obviously. So you are resting on a premise that is itself your opinion. That's not how reasoning should work. an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals. By design, Wikipedia does not have an editor-in-chief. We go by consensus instead. If you want to play editor-in-chief, go start your own encyclopedia with my best wishes for success. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? Probably not, but I'd say that consistency is more important than this minor linking difference, which would be noticed by few readers and cared about by virtually none (which is not to say it wouldn't be an improvement). That's why I pursued a community consensus on |successor=. Without a community consensus, I certainly wouldn't be seen insisting on cross-article consistency in that usage, and implying that everybody who disagrees with me was an incompetent idiot, as you incessantly and tiresomely do. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree on the intro of this article & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose We link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the Presidency section. We can also link it in the intro, perhaps linking it to 45th (although having two links next to each other can be confusing for readers) or in what is currently the third paragraph, beginning "During his presidency..." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't we already have this discussion in April? The decision there was to link to "Presidency of Donald Trump." Or was there a later discussion that changed that? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Never mind - shoulda read to the end of #17. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He held the office of president of the United States, not the office of presidency of Donald Trump. Thus another reason for me to 'oppose' linking to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose linking president of the United States to Presidency of Donald Trump as MOS:EGG. 45th president of the United States IMO is also a tad MOS:EGGy, looks more like a link to List of presidents of the United States. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's a soft-boiled egg. How is it less eggy (more predictable) to target an article about 45 people from text about one? Unquestionably the status quo linking is the least eggy, but then is MOS:EGG the most important thing? I've come close to switching my !vote since I wrote it. This is an unusually sticky question and I'd say we're faced with several equally bad alternatives. Might as well roll a die (and I happen to have one handy). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the more general question before; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#MOS:EGG and linking to specific pages. The general view there was that we still ought to use more specific links even when it creates very minor eggs. In these situations, I go to first principles of what serves readers best. Is it worse to risk that some readers at Donald Trump looking for information on the U.S. presidency (somewhat rare) have to click an extra time to get there from the presidency page, or that readers at Donald Trump looking for detailed information on Trump's presidency (extremely common) don't realize we have a subpage for his presidency and miss out on the level of detail they are seeking? There is no question for me that we should prioritize solving the latter issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

All you have to do there, is mention Presidency of Donald Trump at the top of the article, next to a "For his Administration" bit. Place it right under the "For other uses" bit. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That's worth serious consideration. I would consider "readers aren't likely to look at those hatnotes" a very weak argument against it; we should assume hatnotes will be used or get rid of them site-wide as unneeded clutter. It also dovetails nicely with this overall discussion, since Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus #17 already addresses the top hatnotes. The first sentence would then be free to have a nice, completely EGG-compliant link to President of the United States, and everybody would be happy. Sdkb? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm firmly opposed (as I have been elsewhere) to the use of hatnotes for anything besides the disambiguatory purpose for which they were intended. Their function is not to be a catchall repository of other important related pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:RELATED supports you, and I concede the point. But I think I'll defect to Oppose, reverting to the position I took the last time this linking question came up. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Space4Time3Continuum2x, I really don't think Presidency of Donald Trump is an implausible target for the wikitext, but if we wanted to make it ironclad clear, we could link over served as/was the 45th president of the United States. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's just not link president of the United States to presidency of Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, same argument as what I said in July. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Mandruss, if the perceived egg is what bothers you, what would you think of my 23:23 suggestion to Space4Time3Continuum2x directly above? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  It would be arguably better, but wouldn't tip the scales for me. That's still significantly more eggy than a link where the target article's title exactly matches the linktext (except for the capitalization of the first letter) – i.e., an unpiped link. Good EGG compliance should require predictability in my opinion, and I somewhat strongly oppose this sentence at MOS:EGG, which undermines that principle: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." I very rarely invoke IAR to disregard part of a guideline in all cases, but I make an exception in this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, if you're going to invoke IAR to argue that we should make MOS:EGG way stricter than it actually is and aim to avoid all piped links, I can't argue against that. There's no plausible target for served as/was the 45th president of the United States other than Presidency of Donald Trump, so in my view it's about as EGG-compliant as you can get. And I think you made a great point above when you questioned is MOS:EGG the most important thing?—I think it's clearly a concern, but it's not more important than giving readers links to the pages they are most likely to want to go to. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  I think we all agree that we should give readers links to the pages they are most likely to want to go to. Where we differ is on the importance of doing that in the first sentence of the article. I mean, there is something seriously wrong if a reader who wants to go to information about Trump's presidency can't be asked to scan the TOC for "presidency" – BAM, there it is, in the fifth first-level TOC entry, not hard at all to see – click there, and then click the "Main article" hatnote. That's one additional click in an environment designed around the concept of clicking, hardly a significant difference in usability. We aren't dealing with three-year-olds here – particularly among readers who care one whit about learning about Trump's presidency – and it does not serve a reader in the long run to protect them from learning how Wikipedia is structured. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  And furthermore, how does it make sense to send a reader directly to the Presidency article without first asking them if our Presidency section is enough detail for them? We might as well give them a list of links to sub-articles and skip a large part of this article's content, saving an enormous amount of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  and aim to avoid all piped links – (For the record, I didn't mean to go that far. His presidency is as predictable a link as Presidency of Donald Trump, but served as/was the 45th president of the United States is not. This is largely moot given the preceding points, but maybe worth clearing up anyway.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Served as" vs. "was"

MOS:PUFFERY uses "public servants" as an example of loaded language, and served as is a little better but still not preferable when we could just use the perfectly neutral Donald Trump was the 45th... instead. Let's please not adopt the loaded terminology that politicians use to try to escape the connotations of their profession. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"was" is much better. Neutrality^talk 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I almost proposed "was" instead. Then I thought about the "we should do x because other U.S. presidents' BLPs do x" faction (which includes a few of our most experienced editors), and decided to avoid that. But Wikipedia would do well to deprecate the idea that things are Good merely because they are widespread. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We use "served" in the intro to Barack Obama, so we can use it here, as well. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Served as" is used for every president going backwards from Obama until you get to Nixon. For Nixon we say he "was" the 37th president. "Served as" is then used again for every president until you get to Truman, who we say "was" the 33rd president. FDR again "served as" president, as did Hoover, and Coolidge, but Harding "was" the 29th president. For Wilson we're back to "Served as", but Taft goes back to "was". Theodore Roosevelt returns to "served as" while McKinley "was". "Was" is used for the next couple, but then Chester Arthur "served as". Garfield "was" and Hayes "was", but Grant "served as" while Johnson "was". Lincoln and Bucannan "served as" and Franklin Pierce "was". From Pierce backwards we use "was" until Martin Van Buren, who "served as" the 8th president. We then use "served as" language for all the remaining presidents.

In general, it seems like the trend is to use "served as" for the early presidents and the most recent presidents, and a mix of "was" and "served as" for those in the middle. Interestingly, although this isn't consistent (Hoover "served as") and which presidents were "good" or "bad" at their jobs is up for some debate, it seems for presidents with good reputations we are more likely to use "served as" whereas those who are controversial or widely viewed as "bad" we are more likely to use "was".

Frankly, I think "was" is more neutral, and it would be a good idea to use "was" throughout all U.S. president articles, but I'm not about to run around and try to force that kind of standardization, and I recommend against trying it. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Was is the NPOV statement. All sources agree on that. It's not yet clear whether, what or whom he "served". SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's called self-service, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Salad bar. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ever seems to have objected to "is" or suggested changing it to "serves." Was is the logical continuation and NPOV, also shorter than "served as." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We've variations throughout the US presidents bios, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Served" does not mean he served well. There is such thing as a bad servant. In regard to the comment that Trump was self-serving, I have never seen a credible suggestion that this is true. He was a successful businessman. Did the presidency help him? Arguably it made him worse off.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  He was a successful businessman What? Source for that? That's not the narrative told in this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Was is simpler, with less connotations, and therefore better. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Devil's advocate alternative

• Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was a businessman and television personality, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  This makes it sound like he's deceased. Placing his business/media careers first also makes no sense, since his presidential career is unquestionably more impactful on the world. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  As I expressed early on, it would make sense (and seem natural) to say he "is" something as long as he still breathes. In the BLP for an actor that hasn't been heard from in 20 years, we say either "is an actor" or "is a former actor", not "was an actor". We switch to past tense only when they do. Trump will continue to be "heard from" probably as long as he can speak, as it's his nature to be heard from. I'm just not sure what to say Trump "is" after January 20, and we are obviously not going with loaded labels in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support for them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "is" a businessman. He still will be a businessman after January 20.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but he won't still be a "television personality" by the usual definition, at least not on January 20. We have to formulate something that makes sense on that day, without thinking about what might come later.

Perhaps: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman and former television personality, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Or, maybe the "former television personality" bit could be dropped now that it's over five years old. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

In either case, I think the comma preceding "who" is grammatically incorrect, even if it provides what might be considered a helpful pause in the sentence.

This would reduce the paragraph to a single sentence, which is not a sin of writing but should be noted anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. No comma. No mention that he is/was a TV personality. It will presumably be true that he is a businessman on January 20. This will probably cover subsequent events, and will probably provide a succinct account of who he is. I don't think that summing up his life by saying he was American President for four years makes much sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, then I hereby support this instead of my initial proposal: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Awaiting overwhelming support for that, leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the "president of the United States" part, being linked to? GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This section does not address the linking. As I said just above, ...leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. If that was unclear, it was referring to the #Wikilinks section above. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok let's give it the pretty blue background like the rest. Still omitting the linking since that's a separate and independent question being handled at #Wikilinks.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

• Support per discussion in this subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as this is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Sometimes the Devil has good tunes. I think this sums up who Trump is. He has been a businessman all his adult life and made a late foray into politics, serving as President for the past four years. This avoids implying he ceased to be a businessman and that the presidency was the be-all and end-all of his life.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as a nice way to emphasize that the presidency is, oddly, not the most defining thing about him. Although I might prefer a slightly simpler Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman. He was the president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I find the common phraseology X is a Y who is/was Z to be unnecessarily convoluted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not even a former politician like Schwarzenegger? Mandruss, Schwarzenegger has not returned to politics after his second term as governor ended. Trump's hints at running again may just have the purpose to induce supporters to donate to his PAC but what is the source for him leaving politics on January 20? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Even if he runs again, that won't make him a politician per the dictionary entry (in the collapsed section below). If he runs and gets elected, he will then pass one narrow dictionary sense of "politician" (that merely being in office makes one a politician) while clearly still failing the other two (ignoring the "disparaging" one). At the same time, it would be CRYSTAL to call him a "former politician" in the first sentence, precisely because he's making noises about running again. He's nothing if not a moving target, and he deliberately makes it difficult to know what's real. Considering that the word at best stretches the definition (and most people's concept) in Trump's unusual case, I think it's best just left out as unnecessary; it's sufficient to say he was president. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Bump’s semi-scientific study aka asking random people on the Web (WaPo link), "politician" is in the eye of the beholder. Webster isn’t infallible (see CNN). How is definition 2b supposed to work? You determine the politician’s motives and then call them a politician disparagingly or not? "Office politician" isn’t a compliment but "politician" seems neutral to me. Trump keeps insisting that he’s not a politician (WaPo, BBC, WaExaminer). That usually means that the opposite is true. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all other arguments, the word is clearly problematic when applied to Trump, and we should omit problematic words from the first paragraph of the article. It's unnecessary as I said above, and it's potentially misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose He stepped out of the Trump Org. Is he a businessman? SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Oh come on. He "stepped out" while unofficially keeping his fingers in it through his family members, as I suspect you've probably said yourself at some point in the past. He is a businessman in life-long experience and instinct, in contrast to "politician". We pretty much have to say he's something besides a former president, and I don't know what could be less problematic than "businessman". A "man"? Yeah, that's verifiable since RS always uses the masculine personal pronouns when referring to him. But I wouldn't recommend it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  His foray into politics was predicated on the idea that he was a highly successful businessman who understood the "art of the deal". He continued to discuss political issues by referring to real estate opportunities and ratings. The Trump empire endures. Even the "Winter White House" was a Trump business.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Businessman", especially when unaccompanied by "politician" or "television personality", fails to communicate how much Trump's career is intertwined with his personality, an essential fact about him. Also, it makes no sense to prioritize (by placing first) "businessman" over "president of the United States"; the latter is clearly more important. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Couldn't disagree much more with that last sentence. It makes perfect sense to me to say what he "is" in general terms before anything he has done. Businessman is a defining characteristic; former president is not. Besides, where is it written that the most important should be first rather than last? Isn't the last more likely to be retained than the first, having been read more recently? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  We use "businessman", "politician" and or "lawyer" before "president of the United States", in several intros of the US presidents. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - In hopes of one of these proposals gaining consensus, this one is satisfactory. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support He won one election, that does not make him a politician.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Not enough information. He served as the president of the United States, and is not even described as a politician? It also is inconsistent with other former presidents' pages. A better, more descriptive, and more consistent alternative would be:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, Trump previously was a businessman and television personality before entering politics.

-- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Like it or not, Trump will be mostly remembered for his presidency rather than his business career. — JFG ^talk 15:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a crystal ball, JFG? They are not all accounted for. We can only document what Trump is known for now. Do you think that Arnold Schwarzneggar will be principally known as a politician in the future? Perhaps, but perhaps not. What about Peter Garrett? Bernard Shaw? Malcolm Muggeridge? Horace Walpole? Duff Cooper? Gyles Brandreth? Valentina Tereshkova? John Buchan? Bobby Sands? Gerry Adams? Douglas Hyde? W. B. Yeats? Michael Portillo? Geoffrey Chaucer? Soong Ching-ling? Annie Besant? Mahatma Gandhi? Peter Lalor? Vanessa Redgrave? Fred Thompson? Sonny Bono? Thomas More? John Newton? William Cowper? Jessica Mitford? A. P. Herbert? C. L. R. James?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - many people are "a businessman", it doesn't tell the reader anything meaningful about him. President/former president should come first. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021" is better, "Was" Makes it seem read like he's dead, also Trump remains a Television Personality in a way, this wording makes it (more) clear that the subject is still alive. Hazelforest (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal for first sentence

Withdrawn― notifying GoodDay, MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, Mandruss  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own. Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. His presidency was marked by high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; … - sooo many highlights to choose from. The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job". With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and "Presidency of Donald Trump." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Acceptable - as this satisfies my concerns about 'consistency' across these US president bios articles & the misdirection of wiki-linking the 'presidency' to an individuals administration. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Opposed - typically the opening line of an article such as this gives only the basics of the man and not his tenure, I'm looking at past U.S. presidents when I say this such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as such, the attempt at a rundown of his presidency is a no go for this proposal and is what the succeeding paragraphs in the rest of the lead are for. Also the use of a hyphen is messy, simply say from 2017 to 2021. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC) As I said when I misunderstood what Mandruss had written, I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Probable trolling or WP:NOTHERE. Definite non-starter. Besides, we don't oppose a proposal by making a new one, for obvious reasons of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Oppose- this is too soft. new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time. His presidency was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC) I was thinking more in terms of personal behavior and turmoil at the WH for the second sentence and a bit more in-depth coverage for the—uh—governing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Oppose. Your second sentence is the kind of thing we have in paragraphs 3 and 4 and doesn't belong in paragraph 1 in my opinion. As I've previously said with some support from others, the first paragraph should answer the very basic question, "Who is Donald Trump?" for readers who have never heard of him, and nothing more. And I certainly don't care to get into debates about what few things "marked" his presidency. sooo many highlights to choose from. – Exactly! I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. I'd object to a single-sentence second paragraph (first paragraph is a different animal) and, again, we save broad evaluations of his presidency for paragraphs 3 and 4. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. Disagree with that narrow definition. In my view a politician devotes at least a large part of his adult life to serving in public office. Trump went from businessman and reality show host to president and back, effectively only dabbling in politics after 69 years of life. Even Schwarzenegger is borderline, and he served twice as long – and we're currently calling him a "former politician". Merriam and Webster largely agree with me here:[2] 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government. Trump had no such experience when he announced for president, and he didn't gain much in four years, as evidenced by his failure to be re-elected. especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government Not after January 20. 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession Clearly and objectively not. b : often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons Ok, but let's not be disparaging in the first paragraph. I assume you dropped his middle name by mistake since that would violate MOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

While we haggle out the intro of this article, in preparations for Trump's departure on January 20, 2021. I've opened up a discussion at Joe Biden, concerning that article's intro, which will also change on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for first paragraph

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, and politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is a member of the Republican Party. Prior to his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - as this too is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments elsewhere, including this and this. And the repetition of "businessman" and "television personality" is just poor writing, plain and simple. "John is an electrician and piano teacher. Four years ago, he was an electrician." ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• How about Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Prior to his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, his presidency is clearly the most important, and should come first. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In many of the other US president bio intros, we mention "lawyer" and or "businessman", before "president of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support with caveat - I support this proposal if you cut the opening is a businessman, television personality and just have is a politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Since you have him being a businessman and television personality at the end of the sentence it seems redundant to repeat that. I understand some believe he'll return to business or become a media persona once more, but unless that's confirmed it's simply WP:CRYSTAL and he largely remains known as an ex-president. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support - Similar to Reagan's. Reagan kind of had the same career (media to politics), and this sounds much clearer. I think that this should be its own option. Something like this:

• Weak support I am not sure he is really a politician, rather then someone who won one ellection.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Clumsy and repetitive phrasing. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - basically per JFG. "Politician" is redundant. "Businessman" is a really vague description that doesn't tell anyone anything. It's like saying someone was "a professional". Also, he is more known for being president and TV personality than businessman. As a businessman, he was known for being Fred Trump's son and putative heir. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Another alternative proposal

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

Or:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is a member of the Republican Party. Prior to his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.

Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not need to say it twice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have too many alternative proposals. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the basis that we've already too many alternate proposals. In the words of George Carlin - "Too many choices, people. It's not healthy". GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• As much as I'm disgruntled that yet another proposal has been added, I won't let my process objections color my opinion of the proposal itself. I'm hesitant about it, though, since calling him a politician and a member of the Republican Party together give the strong impression (even if it's not explicitly stated) that he's a conventional career politician who holds traditional Republican views, which is not the case. Also (and this is getting back to process again), those changes aren't really related to the transition. It'd be a lot easier to discuss them on their own merits, rather than throwing them onto the pile here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I feel like I am going against what everyone else thinks, but I support this. It is consistent with other previous presidents' articles, such as Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and the flow is good. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not primarily defined as a politician. Party affiliation has varied as well. — JFG ^talk 15:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Fine. He's most notable for being a Republican, and has had great influence and reshaped it during his tenure as president so it is very lead sentence worthy. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  On the contrary, most sources differentiate him and his actions from what was generally understood to be Republican. Yes, it has been noted that the ex ante Republicans have largely migrated to Trump-followers, but that is not quite the same as calling him a noteworthy Republican. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hasn't the Republican Party now basically become Trump-centered? If you're anti Trump, now you're labeled as a RINO. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose- He wasn't even a Republican until he pursued the nomination. At any rate, his Republican affiliation is incidental to his personal bio, except to the extent we describe his unexpected and brilliant takeover of the party and its elected federal officials. This part does belong in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Reagan was a Democrat until 1962, and yet he is still remembered as a bastion of Republican values. Just because Trump used to not be a Republican doesn't mean that he shouldn't be described as such. During his entire political career (just like Reagan), he has identified as a Republican. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No similarity, for many reasons. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: like it or not, Trump will always be remembered as a Republican, and not a member of one of his previous political parties. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to rebut something that nobody has said. My comment stands. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - "American politician" is redundant. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

new proposal (best proposal yet)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time, by relevant experts. His presidency, informally known as the "Dark Ages" by American historians, was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Not sure what you're trying to prove, but it's not helping. Please, take your personal politics off Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Light at end of tunnel?

The way things are going, do you see any consensus possible before January 20? I'm not seeing it. Perfect is the enemy of good, and we are all vigorously pursuing perfection with little willingness to compromise for the sake of consensus. What to do? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll never accept linking president of the United States to presidency of Donald Trump. As for the rest? too many proposals will decrease the chances of a consensus for any intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is proposing linking over president of the United States. If you are going to bludgeon us with your opposition, at least do it to the actual change proposed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you dropped that linkage proposal? GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought your original proposal, with the modest changes to the wikilink, was fine - a minimal change to the status quo to update the situation to post 20 January. I think it is important to retain "television personality", since that is at the core to who Trump is and now he came to be president. That proposal has notable support, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the first proposal was largely fine, and to the extent it needs tweaks, those should be discussed in subsections describing the tweak, not "alternative proposal #X" subsections that try to offer a wholesale option. We'd be in a better place if those subsections had not been opened. As regards status quo, I think the first proposal, but with "was" rather than "served" per Space4Time3Continuum2x's point, is closest to the status quo, and should be what we default to if discussion deadlocks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(That’s not the end of the tunnel, just the glow from Trump’s phone as he’s blocking the view.) I would suggest one more tweak: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality. That way we also have a link to Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Assuming this is the first proposal we're talking about? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest one more tweak: - LOL. I rest my case. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No objection to that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: We'd be in a better place if those subsections had not been opened. I understand your point. When we have tried your method in the past, we often had editors creating dependent linkages between individual tweaks, as "Support only if Tweak X is made and Tweak Y is not made". If you want to drive yourself completely mad, try sorting out such tangles to divine a consensus. So we were faced with prohibiting such linkages (good luck) or giving up the separate-tweaks methodology. As it turned out, tweaks rarely exist in isolation, and both methods are about equally ineffective. But I'm not opposed to trying it again, and you can show us how it's done. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just copy-paste the lede from Obama & Bush, and tweak it to fit Trump. That's the least controversial and simple way to do it, in my opinion. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we be logical about this? I'd like to see that. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As I recall both Bush and Obama had been political figures before being president, as such they are not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump previously ran for office and lost. A failed politician is still a politician. And now he is a politician, so it is absolutely analogous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this whole 'intro' discussion seems to have gotten ignored, these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

American as a descriptive

Interesting 'question' brought up at Kamala Harris. Do we need to say American politician or American anything? when it's the US president or US vice president? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to say "American" before their job description. I was looking for a section to point this out, so thank you. MOS virtually requires the nationality of the subject to be in the first sentence of a biography, per MOS:OPENPARABIO and even more specifically at MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Every recent president's article follows that MOS format, along the lines of "...is an American politician and attorney who was the...". See Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. This article reached a local consensus not to start the lead that way, but now that we are moving toward a "past president" article we should do it the standard way. There are multiple suggested wordings above, and several of them would be acceptable to me - provided they start with the format "Donald Trump is an American (whatever profession is decided on - politician, businessman, former television personality - personally I would just go with American businessman) who was the ..." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding apparent wiki-tradition, I feel that "American" is obvious when talking about a U.S. president. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't be president if you aren't a natural-born American. Besides the requirements guidelines from MOS, is it really necessary to state the obvious? Mgasparin (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "requirement from MOS". MOS is a set of guidelines which, by definition, allow exceptions. This seems like a reasonable use of that flexibility to me. Regarding other U.S. presidents' BLPs, my response is the usual for elements lacking a community consensus covering all U.S. presidents: This article is not governed by what editors have chosen to do at those articles, and such reasoning can prevent improvements to the encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mandruss You didn't really answer my question. Do we need to state that he is an American? Mgasparin (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we do not. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course we should, but only when introducing the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Second interim proposal

Discussion has largely stalled, I see no particular consensus for any of the "comprehensive" alternatives offered, and we have a mere 15 days before we have to do something with the first paragraph. Consistent with comments from multiple editors at #Light at end of tunnel?, I think we should establish a consensus for a bare minimum of change at noon EST on January 20, and then proceed with discussions about further incremental changes. There is no reason to defer those discussions until after the 20th, and it would save time to go ahead with them now, but they should not affect the interim consensus unless they also reach consensus before the 20th.

In my opinion it would be cleaner to start over with those discussions, separately from #First paragraph on Inauguration Day, since they are logically separate from the interim content. What we have now is a disorganized mess not really suitable for linking from the consensus list.

This is basically what I had in mind when I started this on 19 December, but I didn't express it clearly enough and we needed the experience of failure to see the need for it.

I see weak consensuses on one or two points, but they are not within "a bare minimum of change" and are not included in this proposal. Per standard process at this article – the entire first paragraph is covered by Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus item 17 – no edits to the first paragraph may be made without prior consensus, and any uninformed edits-without-consensus should be immediately reverted.

Is->was is less change than is->served as, so I'm proposing the former here on that basis alone.

This edit appears to be correct per #17, and I don't know how or when that link was removed.

Here is my proposal, then, for getting us past January 20. When evaluating it, don't ask whether it's optimal (it is not) but whether it's marginally acceptable in the short term. For my part, there are at least two things about it that I will strongly support changing after the 20th.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Would have to remove the linkage from "45th", as that's a practice no longer implemented on the former US presidents & former US vice presidents bio intros. However, I wouldn't object to the practice being re-stored to all of them. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  GoodDay, could you find the discussion/edit that led to the removal? I don't want the link over 45th to be a sticking point. Apart from that, this is the option closest to the status quo and is what we should default to in the absence of an affirmative consensus for a change. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  It was'bout 2 or 3 years ago. Some fellow went through all the US prez & vice prez bios & removed the links in the infoboxes. Since then 'someone' removed the links from the intros themselves. I can't remember 'who' did it & where the discussion was had to allow him to do it. I would gladly restore those links, if nobody will object. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's part of our consensus #17 and there is no community consensus to override it, so you're mistaken. As we've established before, there is no general policy, guideline, or other community consensus governing cross-article consistencies in such details, so, absent a community consensus for the specific detail, this article is not bound in the slightest by what editors at other articles have done (see |successor= for a recent example of this principle in action). You really, really – did I mention really? – need to understand this and cease making such arguments.

  If that is not enough, this is clearly not "a bare minimum change" for the short term, a condition that was clearly stipulated above. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  If noboby objects, I'll happily restore those links. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Per the instruction at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article." It is not the place to discuss what should or should not happen at other articles, and any decisions reached here would have zero weight there. This is Wikipedia Editing 101. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  If the link-in-question is kept in the intro after January 20? I'll make linkages throughout the others. Somewhat of a long thankless task, but that's what gnome editors are for. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I’d like to see the descriptors fascist, despotic, or nazi-adjacent added, considering Mr. Trump’s recent ham-fisted attempts to end American democracy. Anyone else in favor? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Setting aside the fact that that's a total non-starter, please explain how that is something that satisfies "bare minimum of change" for the short term. The entire point of this subsection is that it is NOT merely a continuation of the discussion that has been ongoing since 19 December. If you have trouble with this concept, please re-read the above and let me know what's unclear. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Simple, uncontroversial, and short. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Why not move this to Talk:Donald trump#Highlighted open discussions and place an RfC tag for greater visibility? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've listed it at Highlighted open discussions. RfC would be premature per WP:RFCBEFORE, and I think it's unlikely to prove necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - addresses concerns raised with the alternatives above. Concise and accurate, plus it emphasises presidency first. Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. The wording is the best of all the choices so far. I think "real estate developer" should be used instead of "businessman" (more precise/descriptive than the meaningless label "businessman"), and the order should be switched, so it's stated as president->TV personality->real estate developer, in that order (the proper order of significance IMO). I disagree with the WP:SEAOFBLUE for "45th" and "president of the United States", it should just use the latter link. I wouldn't say "entering politics", as it's imprecise. He stood for and won one election (a big one, of course), it's not like he's had some long career in politics. If he holds other offices in the future, that might become an apt way of describing it, but not after one term in one office. Also, grammatically-speaking, the way it's written (for all these proposals), it suggests there were 45 presidents between 2017 and 2021. So my preference would be Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States, serving from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and real estate developer. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is far better than the suggested one, but remember, this is temporary. This is like a backup in case nothing else gets selected. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: The point is that we may not have a consensus for anything by noon EST on January 20 unless we limit this particular consensus to bare minimum change. If you don't believe that, you haven't been around for the discussions that have occurred since December 19. Then we would have a problem, as change could no longer wait for consensus (we can't continue to say Trump is the current president after noon on the 20th), Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus #17 would have to be simply ignored, and we would have instability in the most visible part of the article, possibly lasting for a week or more. The orderly process provided by the consensus list would be lost and edit wars could break out, possibly requiring the article to be full-protected. In my opinion none of the changes you propose have to be in the temporary January 20 version. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich's suggestions are an improvement. I think we should at least adopt the three non-controversial, technical tweaks (unlinked "45th", change to "before being elected" and "serving from" for grammatical clarity). The other two suggestions ("real estate developer", order change) are more than the minimal change we're trying to settle on here and should be put aside for now (and discussed separately) so that the updated fallback is closest to the current revision. The sentence would look like: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States, serving from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a businessman and television personality. Jr8825 • Talk 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Somehow I'm failing to make my point clear. And I'm getting tired. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I think I did get your point but my optimistic tone confused things – unless I'm completely overlooking something? I've edited my previous comment to make it more clear I think the 2 complex changes need later discussion. My point is that while the 3 tweaks I highlighted don't need to be in the temporary January 20 version, I don't see why they shouldn't be, as I consider them straightforward, non-controversial improvements. They're just wording adjustments, there's no substantive content change vis-à-vis your interim proposal. Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Jr8825: Without existing consensuses, you can't assume anything will be uncontroversial. I've seen it time and time again, where an editor can't fathom why a different editor is objecting to their uncontroversial proposal. If we allowed in your uncontroversial tweaks, wouldn't we then have to allow in uncontroversial tweaks from other editors? What if you or someone else don't like their uncontroversial tweaks? And then we're back in the bind that got us to this point. In this unusual situation, we haven't the time to resolve all that, and I strongly feel we need to just stick to bare minimum change without uncontroversial tweaks. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I hear you. I have no issue setting these adjustments aside for the sake of finding something "marginally acceptable" and my previous support !vote still stands. However, I'd like to draw attention to the specific change before entering politics>before being elected. I think this is an significant improvement as it's contradictory to say Trump entered politics in 2016 when this article has a section entitled "Political activities up to 2015"! For me, "before entering politics" is only marginally acceptable; "before being elected" is imperfect, but less imperfect. Jr8825 • Talk 09:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't see how something that has been in the first sentence unchanged and unchallenged for several years can suddenly be so important to "fix" in the temporary, short-term version. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think the current revision has quite the same issue. Right now, "before entering politics" is framed by "current president" so the inference for the reader is simply "Now he's president. Before he was a businessman". However, I'll readily admit that issues are always placed in much sharper relief when you're picking something apart word-by-word. Jr8825 • Talk 10:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support The most achievable and necessary change is to change the word "is" to "was". We may never have consensus for anything else. All further proposals should remain minimal in nature, like one or two words each time, as we are clearly not able to do anything better than that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as marginally acceptable in the short term. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – The initial "was" makes it sound like he's dead. The original proposal "served as" is factual and less ambiguous. (cue in jokes on "serving") — JFG ^talk 06:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Serving indeed. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but with the lead name amended to Donald John Trump Sr., as opposed to Donald John Trump Jr., per MOS:FULLNAME — amchow78 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, "Was" Makes it seem read like he's dead, also Trump remains a Television Personality in a way, this wording makes it (more) clear that the subject is still alive. Hazelforest (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Hazelforest's proposal. Unless something truly bizarre happens, Trump will absolutely still be a television personality after tomorrow until probably his death. He has mostly, if not entirely, severed direct connections to his businesses. And it puts his presidency in the past-tense without making it seem like he died. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Long tag

There has been some back and forth on the article about whether this tag should be on the article. It seems clear to me that this article suffers from length issues and this should be brought to mind when editors seek to make changes to the article. Are there any objections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior consensus on the talk page states to leave the article alone, so I wouldn't add it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any objections? – Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary,[3] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact.[4] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean if there are any objections presently. If there aren't any objections at this present time, then the tag should go ahead. I'm aware in the past there has been more opposition than support for it, but I am gauging if that is still the case now. I apologise if that wasn't clear. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just gauge intermittently -- like every 6 months or so. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I continue to oppose the tag with the same reasoning as all the previous times. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Should we add this to the Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus? Something like:

050. Do not include the {{long}} tag at the beginning of the article. (link)

Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on this talk page section, but there may be one. So far only I have indicated support of it, and only Mandruss has indicated opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We all know it's too long, no need to state the obvious. Besides, having maintenance tags on articles gives them the appearance of being poor quality. Mgasparin (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We clearly do not all know this, by the fact that the article is too long, otherwise it wouldn't be. Those who participate on the talk page may overwhelmingly know that the article is too long, but many editors of this article aren't checking the talk page, and most of the readers who are all potential editors don't check this talk page either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought, and it looks like that will be necessary. Since some editors in this thread are wisely refraining from engaging the debate yet again, the list item should probably link to one or two of the earlier discussions. I think this one is the most recent one. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Agreed. This is a controversial issue, so it should be included in the current consensus. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Compromise/alternative idea - the editnotice for the page currently is itself too long and isn't going to be fully read by anyone probably. The "want to add new information" section is in smaller text than the other three sections of the editnotice, and is at the very bottom. Personally, I don't even know where the first red box comes from, but if nothing else we should put the "want to add new information" in larger text and at the very top so people who try to edit the article see that statement first. It also doesn't include all the other articles there are - that needs updating. Maybe that will prevent people from adding more while future discussion here can work on paring down what's already in? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag. At 122 kB readable prose size there is a problem. Fix it and you'll get to remove the tag. Maintenance tags are not badges of shame. They alert editors about a specific issue and serve as a call to action to fix/discuss it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support tag - It won't hurt to make it official. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Given your more recent comments about drastically reducing the size of the article, are you willing to reconsider your opposition to the maintenance tag? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we can tentatively place the tag into the article, as the default circumstance when a tag is applicable to the article, until or unless there is a consensus against doing so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be placed on the article. The opponents say it will have no effect — which might be true — but that's not a strong reason not to have the tag. At worst, it might not do anything. But it just might encourage editors to stop inflating the article. It is inconsistent for editors to bemoan the size of the article and to remain silent or actively encourage an expansion of the article. I have not seen a strong argument against having a tag. If no one presents a strong argument that a tag would be bad, rather than just ineffectual, I will impose the tag and enforce it as far and as much as I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I recommend you go ahead with it. The clear sentiment here is that there should be a tag. There has been plenty of opportunity for opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jeepers - if at first you don't succeed, try again, and again, and again, and again ---? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Refused to concede defeat

I partially reverted an edit by UpdateNerd which changed a sentence in the lead from "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat" to "Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but initially refused to concede defeat".

The RS are split. For example, the FT says "Donald Trump concedes election", whereas The Guardian says "while stopping short of outright admitting defeat, Trump’s statement is the closest he has come to a concession speech."

There's no urgent need to adjust the existing sentence as it's written in past tense. I'm personally against change but thought I'd bring this up here as I imagine this sentence may become contentious. Jr8825 • Talk 12:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a day earlier he said [5] Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out... It seems that the new stance is that I did lose but illegitimately. starship.paint (exalt) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind. The news media created this idea that a presidential candidate has to concede, when he loses an election. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of a presidential candidate being required to declare victory or concede defeat. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

    I feel regardless,it still is fair to concede and anyone that doesn't isn't that fit to be a President. We don't want sore losers. Yeial (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The news media did not create longstanding norms in political processes, which exist outside written rules (the Constitution and the law). Asserting written rules, ignoring those norms, is the real-world equivalent of wikilawyering and has rightly earned Trump a partial community ban. He will continue to post on talk pages as long as he's physically able, but he can no longer edit articles. It's not a perfect metaphor but it'll do. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's still not called for in the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It still doesn't matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the partial revert. However, I added a note with his quote about being willing to transition his power. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I object to the note. What's the point? He followed that up with the two tweets that got him banned from Twitter ("One stated that the 75 million who voted for him were “American Patriots” who will “not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” He then announced he would not go to Biden’s swearing-in ceremony later this month.WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

There was a recent change to the lead section by Onetwothreeip (which I reverted) that added "...did not concede defeat until two months afterwards" and that eliminated the part about not cooperating with the transition. But point (1) is inaccurate. Trump conceded that his administration would end and that "a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th" but he has still refused to concede that he was defeated (i.e., he lost a free and fair election). As for point (2), Trump pledged an "orderly transition" very recently, but the historical fact remains that he refused to cooperate in the transition for a significant time (and who knows what will happen in the next 12 days).

However, I do agree that some changes to the last paragraph of the lead would be a good idea. I propose changing the current version:

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. He made unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud, pressured government officials, mounted a series of sixty unsuccessful legal challenges to try to overturn the results, and ordered his administration not to cooperate in the presidential transition. During the congressional certification of the results on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.

to something like:

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.

This is a tad shorter, while being more clear and accurate. It also avoids giving a specific number of failed election lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies. (The current text says "60" but USA Today says it's actually 62 -- I would just go with "dozens" or "scores." --Neutrality^talk 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support though I'd change "dozens of" to "many". I don't want to do much to this article til Trump is gone from Washington DC, but this is a clear improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree it's an improvement. I think "stymieing" is too uncommon a word for the lead and could make it harder to understand for some readers (it's also informal). "Obstructing" seems the obvious choice to me. Jr8825 • Talk 05:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jr8825, I'm OK with "obstructing" ("delaying and obstructing" would be accurate too, although I'm mindful of space). Neutrality^talk 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: The first edit I made was a partial revert per BRD, and the second was further changes. Can you confirm your revert only affected those further changes? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Could you clarify the reason for your first revert? It removed this sentence added by Football3434:

The storming of the Capitol resulted in five fatalities and at least 60 injuries. One of the fatalities was a police officer.

Per WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." As far as I can tell, Football3434's edit was made in good faith and did not violate any policies or guidelines. The comment states not to "change [the] language" without discussing first. Do you have another objection? The addition should have had a reference, but I can find several to back it up. -- Alex Rosenberg (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I ever gave BRD as the reason for my revert. I have no doubt that the content was added in good faith and is supported by sources. The reason I removed it was because it is far too much detail for the lead section, and far too specific as well. Further information about the events should be written elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Having also worked a little on recent lead changes, I support the more efficient re-wording. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support - as heck knows, the lead in this BLP is way too big. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support As it is more efficent and accurate wording. But I would also change "dozens" to "scores" since it highlights the number of lawsuits filed more so. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think Neutrality's wording is fine, but I think this belongs in the first paragraph of the lead. Forgive me if this is under discussion elsewhere, but this can't go down below after trivia about Ms. Universe, etc. That's like putting JFK's assassination in a footnote. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op

This is surely a subsection that this article can do without, especially given the article's extreme size. An example of something that seemed much bigger at the time than it does now and will seem in the future. Thoughts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed here. That discussion resulted in it being reduced from a level 3 to a level 4 heading. Maybe now it could be reduced to On June 1, 2020, federal law enforcement officials used batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square. Trump then walked to St. John's Episcopal Church, posing for photographs with a Bible. Many religious leaders and military officials condemned the treatment of protesters and photo opportunity itself. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 16:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There were several previous discussions, [6], [7], [8], and especially this one. The proposed trimming misses the point, i.e., the seeming involvement of the military (in the persons of Milley and Esper) and the backlash against it. It's still in the news, e.g. It should probably be moved into a section with 2021 Capitol storming 2021 because the failure to secure a perimeter around the Capitol and adequately prepare for a mob attack seem to be connected to the reactions to that photo-op. Don't have the time right now to look up the sources; it's still a developing story anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The two events are clearly not connected, and it would be wrong for us to connect them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That incident was a watershed moment of among other things abuse of power, military involvement, and violation of first amendment rights. Extensively sourced as such. Needs to stay as it was. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it was just another one of the many controversial events that Donald Trump has been seen as responsible for. No particular significance beyond the week in which it happened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Some treated it as the equivalent of Kristallnacht. In fact, no dictatorship ensued. The protesters were not primarily protesting against Trump. The arson attack against the church was a valid police issue. Trump critics came off half-cocked and pumped the issue up. But now we can see that it was a blip on the radar. The incident is adequately covered by its own article. We don't need to refer to every incident Trump was involved in — from nappies to Napoleon.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issues: first amendment rights of lawful and peaceful demonstrators; using federal law enforcement, including seemingly the U.S. military, represented by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, and the secretary of defense— with a National Guard commander later admitting 'excessive use of force'—for no other reason than Trump wanting to cross the street for a photo-op. This isn’t nappies, it’s wannabe Mussolini, "a defining moment of the Trump presidency" and a stark contrast to the lack of preparation for and the initially laid-back handling of the January 6 riot (The Guardian, WaPo). The wannabe Mussolini tried to get "his military" (NYT) to do his bidding, and—when they made it clear that their allegiance was to the Constitution and not to him—he sent his flock of conspiracy theorists and alt-right militants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Quoting the NYT cite, dated September 25: The confrontation in Lafayette Square near the White House in June crystallized for the Defense Department just how close to the precipice the military came to being pulled into a domestic political crisis. Military helicopters and armed members of the National Guard patrolled the streets next to federal agents in riot gear so that the president, flanked by Mr. Esper and General Milley, could walk across the square to hold up a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. Current and former members of the armed forces were outraged. ... Both men, but General Milley especially, were so sharply criticized by former military and Pentagon leaders for taking part in the walk that they spent the days afterward in serious damage control. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Jack, it was extensively discussed and is only more significant in light of recent events. Also, your undocumented reference to Kristallnacht is inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What you say happened is indeed what happened, but it's just not particularly notable or important. The idea that a much more significant event which overshadows this one makes the Lafayette Square incident more significant is completely ridiculous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

it's just not particularly notable or important: You’re entitled to your opinion but many current and former military leaders ([9]), major newspapers (see above), and experts ([10]) disagree. makes the Lafayette Square incident more significant: You’re misrepresenting what I wrote. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC) This just in: WaPo, Jan 14, 2021 Adding quote: These two demonstrations, at the most prominent symbols of democracy in the nation’s capital, will define Trump’s legacy, highlighting the divisions he has stoked and the disparate treatment of Black and White people in America by law enforcement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are saying "no" without responding to the reasons this content was adopted by consensus here. Please review the talk archive, RS narratives, and the reasons given in this thread. You can use dispute resolution, but right now there is not support for your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference to Kristallnacht is a fair representation of some of the claims made in this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more specific than that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, looking at the balance of newspaper sources, this is not especially notable. We cannot, and we do not, give extended coverage to each event that is called "defining" or "significant" by newspaper sources, as there are far too many. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you continue to tell us it's insignificant without addressing the arguments against changing this consensus text. You could tell us why you think the militarization and escalation of ordinary routine policing, later disavowed by Gen. Milley, is not as significant as the sources tell us. Or you could start an RfC to establish a revised consensus. It's pointless to repeat "no" without engaging in the discussion here. So long as you do not continue edit-warring the text, nothing more will come of it, but please do not edit the text again without consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop wilfully misrepresenting what I am saying. I have no opinion on how significant the event is. I am saying that the sources do not say this is particularly significant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this the Schrödinger's cat equivalent of discussion, saying that sources both said it was significant and it wasn't? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I said both times that the balance of sources does not indicate this content is significant enough for the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical View of Trump’s Presidency

As per every other article about US Presidents, they all include a link to Historical rankings of presidents of the United States and how historians view the presidency. With his term wrapping up, I’m assuming we would do the same for Trump. He’s generally viewed very unfavorably, and in some cases, the worst president we’ve had thus far. Is there a consensus on when this can/should be added to the article? ChipotleHater (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I agree he will be viewed "unfavorably" it's to early to really judge how historians will view him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For goodness sake. He hasn't left office yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The historian Victor Davis Hanson's works include The Case for Trump (2019), presciently pointing out that Trump has been too outspoken for his own good, and his fall is comparable to a protagonist in the tragic dramas of ancient Greek literature. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ChipotleHater: If you want this to be included, your best bet is to collect a bunch of historians describing his presidency and propose specific text aligning with those materials. Even so, it'll possibly fail per WP:TOOSOON, but without sources and a specific proposal it's all but guaranteed to fail. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We should have something on his legacy pretty soon, as in the coming weeks and months, certainly before summer, and it's a good time to start thinking/working on a section (given that it will take some time). Quite unlike other presidents who left office Trump already has a very well-established legacy in scholarship, rankings and coverage in RS that typically describes him as the worst president in U.S. history, or in similar terms. It might be relevant to include the historical assessment of his presidency by his own successor Joe Biden[11]: He has been an embarrassment to the country, embarrassed us around the world. Not worthy, not worthy to hold that office (That assessment is particularly notable because it's not the norm for U.S. presidents(-elect) to offer that kind of negative assessment of their predecessor; for instance Obama didn't say anything like that about George W. Bush). --Tataral (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's way too early to be talking about this while he is still president, or in the immediate aftermath of his presidency. Passions are running too high, memories are too recent, no perspective has been developed yet. I notice that in the Historical Rankings article, the most recent survey results are from 2018. We should wait until the next such survey comes out - possibly this year, possibly next year. In any case we should not add anything on the subject to this primary biographical article until it has been recorded and reported in one or more daughter articles, such as Historical Rankings or Presidency of... -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"no perspective has been developed yet": That is simply not true. We have five years of extreme coverage of him in RS (as in being the person on the planet covered the most by RS), both scholarly and other RS, we have rankings, huge amounts of scholarly assessments and discussion, and a clear RS consensus on a number of issues. His legacy is firmly established, at least to the extent that we can say something (although RS consensus may of course, in theory at least, evolve over time, and then we'll adjust the article accordingly). When we could add material about the legacy of a normal politician who didn't do anything spectacular after a couple of months, we'll certainly be able to add something about the legacy of Trump. There is consensus among RS about his legacy (or at least key aspects of it) to a degree that didn't exist at all when Bush or Obama or Clinton left office. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, I get it. The verdict of scholars is almost certainly going to be that he was so far-and-away the worst president ever, that there is no one in second place. (Like the first America's Cup race, when Queen Victoria was told the American boat was winning by 8 minutes, and she asked who was in second, and the reply was "Your Majesty, there is no second."[12]) But I still believe the reputable scholars will wait, and we will have to wait, until his presidency is over by at least some months before evaluating it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just curios if there was a consensus on when this should be added. Does anyone know when this was added to Obama's lead?ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think in reality the verdict of historians changes with time. Churchill's reputation has risen. Mao's has fallen.Nixon's has recovered somewhat. I don't think anyone would have predicted the fall from grace of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. We need to wait on this. In reality, Trump's style is very brash, but there is very little in his policies, such as negotiation with North Korean or building a wall on the Mexican border, that is genuinely unique.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to both Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, their reputations were upended because of information we learned later. I cannot fathom any piece of information coming out soon that could possibly salvage Trump's presidency.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump had more legal votes than all previous presidents before him. To say he failed as a president what is the grading criteria? More people voted for him then all past presidents; while the entire time the mainstream media was against him entirely and viciously. Never have we seen the entire media forces demonize a president and still out vote all past presidents. 71.197.223.134 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I knew there would be a response like this. Amount of votes =/= job well done. Also, he's gotten the second most votes for president, the first being Joe Biden. Regardless, his administration compared to administrations before has done a lackluster job. His largest campaign promises, i.e. repealing Obamacare and building the wall, both failed. He mishandled a pandemic, he incited a coup on the capitol, he frequently fired advisors and cabinet secretaries that disagreed with him. Did the media have a bias against him? Sure, but for good reason.ChipotleHater (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ChipotleHater: @MelanieN: @Tataral: By February 20, 2017, Obama's page had more or less "settled" to reflect his historical ranking. There was some variation between edits as to whether it should be in its own section or in the intro, but the consensus at the time was clearly that it should be listed. On that note, come inauguration day (after 12:00 PM, I suppose), I believe we should add this at the end of the last leading paragraph. Something to the tune of "in the limited number of scholarly surveys of U.S. presidents conducted during or after his term, Trump's presidency has been ranked as one of the worst in American history." This is wholly representative of the rankings we have, and it makes it clear that there is only a limited amount of data. Yes, in 2017 it took a month or so to add this information, but as far as I can tell, that small delay was simply because it was an uncoordinated effort, and not because we had any reason to wait. So if we decide this in advance, I see no reason or precedent to wait well past inauguration day. Cpotisch (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think, T**** is exceptional in ways even Obama never has been, historically and currently, and I agree with Melanie, let's wait a bit. We don't know yet what will unfold. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What is going to magically unfold that will somehow help Trump's presidency? The most likely thing to happen is that he is the first President convicted by the Senate.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of magic, nor was I anticipating events helping his presidency. I just thought we could wait a bit longer. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's final day of his presidency is today. Therefore, I think it's fair to discuss the historical view of Trump, as is with every President. I do not think it's too early to give an overview of his Presidency according to historians and political scientists. He's the first President to be impeached twice and failed to handle the COVID-19 pandemic (according to sources in the lede). Obama, who left office is just 4 years ago, also has a statement about how historians view his Presidency.

I took a snapshot of the John Hopkins COVID-19 statistics page for today (last full day of Trump's presidency) with the over 400,000 deaths total number, in case someone wants to mention that figure in the article ("downplayed the pandemic... bla bla... resulting in more than 400 thousand deaths during his term" or sth). Guss77 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See historians views on Trump. He is viewed as one of the worst Presidents in American history. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

Additionally, a poll by PBS found that nearly half of Americans believe Trump will go down as the worst President in American history.

A simple sentence such as "Historians and scholars generally rank Trump as one of the country's worst presidents" seems like it would apply. I would support such a measurePennsylvania2 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a vote on what we're doing tomorrow? I believe that, until we get a clearer consensus, it should be totally uncontroversial for me to add that "in the limited number of presidential surveys of scholars and historians that have been conducted during or after hist term, Trump's presidency is generally ranked as one of the worst in American history." WP:TOOSOON covers the creation of dedicated articles, which is radically different than the addition of one sentence in a massive existing article. We added the equivalent info to Obama's article less than a month after his term ended, and there wasn't remotely as clear a scholarly consensus then as there is for Trump now. We've had these rankings in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States for years. Furthermore, frankly, Trump's terribleness (at least in the eyes of academics) kind of defines his presidency. The proposed sentence makes it clear that it's early and that the analysis is only in the eyes of scholars and historians. But withholding it, given the sources and surveys we have, seems unrepresentative of what we know now. Can we agree that this is reasonable, considering all those points, and that citations will of course be included to show exactly what we are taking this from? Thanks so much. Cpotisch (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can concur with this request. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Provide facts and not opinions on what Trump said to his supporters on 1/6/2021

These statements are repeated multiple times in this article: "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol" Where is the reference to this statement? Should we actually quote what Trump actually said? If Wikipedia wants to retain credibility, they need to provide actual quotes of what someone said instead of someone interpreting what was said.

I recommend changing these statements to: "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.". He did not ask his supporters to march On the Capitol or storm the Capitol or break into the Capitol. If another politician said "we are going to walk down to the White House to protest." Are they saying to breach the fences and storm into the actual White House? If so you have a lot of other Wikipedia articles to fix and reinterpret.

Reference of actual quote made by Donald Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8202:b2d0:4559:8c7d:75dc:c04 (talk) 08:51, January 11, 2021 (UTC)

That would provide an incomplete picture of Trump's intentions. According to Republican senator Ben Sasse, senior White House officials stated that President Trump was "delighted" to hear that his supporters were breaking into the Capitol building in a riot Wednesday that turned deadly. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533403-sasse-says-trump-was-delighted-and-excited-by-reports-of-capitol-riot

This is rather damning that a riot was something Trump wanted: "As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building," Sasse told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt in an interview. "That was happening. He was delighted."

Also enough dog whistles by the president were sufficient for many of his MAGA followers to make plans to storm the Capitol, as shown painstakingly in this thread containing screenshots of Trump supporter forums: https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347903604196306953 --Redgon (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

He also told his supporters to "fight like hell". Not sure how that's not urging them. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The New York Times excerpts are from different parts of the speech. Here are more excerpts from the transcript of Trump's speech, including the part immediately leading up to the "walk down" part:

  (At 16:25) Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

  (At 01:11:44) Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come. So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give. The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The NYT wrote: The president’s speech was riddled with violent imagery and calls to fight harder than before. By contrast, he made only a passing suggestion that the protest should be nonviolent, saying, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." The attack on the Capitol is a pretty clear indication that the mob heard the calls to fight and not the passing suggestion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose quoting him at all here. There are no quotes from his remarks that are notable. It is the sentiments overall that he expressed which are notable, and reliable sources summarise them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The responses here are riddled with more references to opinions. They can be included but they should best sighted as opinions and not what the president said.

• comment I think this might be a miscommunication. the lede says "Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed" which seens to indicate that these are two separate events. It might be better to say "marched TO the capitol" which he undeniably encouraged, assuming this is what it is referencing Anon0098 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "march to the capitol" is better, more NPOV. I'll change it and see what happens. Bdushaw (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

North Korea's arsenal

I removed this, with a long edit summary, but it was restored with insufficient explanation:

During Trump's term, North Korea built up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Firstly, this is an intelligence estimate, not a proven fact. If true, it is misleading to say this happened during Trump's term. It has happened in the term of every President since Clinton (or earlier). The terminology is also imprecise. Nuclear weapons usually means nuclear missiles. Ballistic missiles includes bullets and hand grenades. This sentence was added with the edit summary suggesting that it was "ultimate bottom-line outcome" and restored with the suggestion that it was "vital context". We have had this discussion before. It is too soon to declare an "ultimate" outcome. As for "vital context", let us remember that this is an overlong article about Donald Trump. It is not about North Korea's military capabilities. I would have thought that President Moon's activities were "vital context". But Moon isn't mentioned at at all. In the interest of brevity, I think that the fact that talks in Sweden broke down after one day is a sufficient conclusion. Adding speculation is unnecessary. Really, this is just another Democratic Party talking point. If editors insist on such a sentence, I would suggest something like this:

Since 2017, North Korea has not tested a nuclear bomb or an intercontinental ballistic missile, but intelligence suggests that it has continued to build up its nuclear arsenal.

I think leaving out the cessation of these tests is clearly leaving out vital context.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• You removed reliably sourced content and want us to accept your—expert?—opinion that it ain't true and that bullets and hand grenades are ballistic missiles? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at ballistics.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• A ballistic path does not a ballistic missile make. By definition, ballistic missiles must have a powered portion of its flight, something that neither bullets nor hand grenades have. Hand grenades only have the energy imparted by the throw, and bullets the energy provided by the chemical charge inside the gun. Neither has a powered portion of flight. Ballistic missiles also require a guided portion of flight. With very few and extremely rare exceptions, neither bullets nor hand grenades have any guided portion of flight. This is a silly argument to make. Generally speaking, while the path of all objects with an unpowered portion of their trajectory follow the physics of ballistics, in military terminology, distinctions are made. Bullets, for example, are generally considered direct fire, which distinguishes them from indirect fire weapons, such as mortars and, yes, ballistic missiles. Hand grenades could be considered a form of indirect fire, but bullets generally speaking are not. All of these may technically follow ballistic physics in their unpowered portions of flight (which might be the entire flight), but technical terminology distinguishes between these different forms of ballistics. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• This was aside that I made, which has generated too much interest. To be pedantic, a bullet is a missile and is also ballistic. The real issue with saying "ballistic missiles" is that it could mean ballistic missiles (i.e., non-guided missiles) in general or it could be a colloquial term for an ICBM. Yes, in the past few years, North Korea has been testing short-range ballistic missiles. But Trump's interest was clearly (and naturally) on missiles that could hit the USA (ICBMs). Saying "nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" is problematic because "nuclear weapons" could mean "nuclear missiles", so either we are saying "missiles and missiles" or we are talking about nuclear missiles and conventional weapons. It's sloppy terminology however you look at it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is obviously improper to give several sentences on Trump's failed diplomatic effort without clearly noting the outcome/results: North Korea has continued to build up its nuclear arsenal. This is the kind of bottom-line context/conclusion that our readers expect and deserve. The idea that "ballistic missiles" in this context would be construed to mean "bullets and hand grenades" is, to put it politely, laughable; that's like saying our readers would confuse a baptismal font and a swimming pool. It's also wrong to suggest that this is just something that random intelligence "suggests" - it's almost universally understood within the relevant expert community and is in fact confirmed by a UN panel of experts. The temporary testing halt doesn't seem noteworthy, either. Neutrality^talk 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Also tagging Scjessey, who made the edit restoring the sentence.

I would argue the only reasonable summary of Trump's dance with North Korea is that Trump tried cosying up to Kim, then tried insulting him, then tried cosying up again, and the only result is that he succeeded in elevating Kim's status on the world stage by making him appear "equal" to the President of the United States while he continued to build up his nuclear arsenal. Any language that can be crafted that doesn't describe Trump's efforts as anything other than a spectacular foreign policy failure is likely to be a non starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the phrase "nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" is that it is sloppy. Yes, most readers will have a vague idea of what is mean. But we should avoid vagueness and sloppiness. I would have thought. It have never said the intelligence wasn't true, just that we shouldn't portray this intelligence as fact. The first paragraph of the UN report cited makes this clear: "North Korea’s production of nuclear weapons continues despite aggressive sanctions, according to an article by CNN on Aug. 4 of an unreleased report by a UN panel of experts. The new report says Pyongyang has likely developed the capability to manufacture miniaturized nuclear devices that can fit on its ballistic missiles." intelligence apparently reported the same thing in 2017. Is that progress???And please remember we are talking about Trump. In this context, a "temporary testing halt" is more noteworthy than North Korea's long-term acquisition of nuclear weapons — a process which began apparently in the 1980s — or its development of missiles — which has been ongoing since 1948... This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't really belong in a biography of TRUMP.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what relevance this really has to do with Donny. We need to strip this down to be about him as a person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• If you look at the sources, they clearly reflect that Trump engaged in extensive personal diplomacy with Pyongyang. The outcome of that personal diplomacy is thus of course part of his legacy, as the RS reflect. Neutrality^talk 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• But only as president, not in his capacity as a private individual.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• This biography covers his whole life, including the presidency, the most important part of his life. Neutrality^talk 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Saying that North Korea still has nuclear weapons is stating the bleeding obvious. It is not part of Trump's personal legacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The article says that Trump demanded denuclearization and held multiple summits with Kim, who claimed at one point that he would "work toward" that goal. It would be completely misleading, then, to omit the key part: North Korea never did that, and continued to build up its nuclear and ballistic missile arsenals throughout Trump's time in office. I also have no idea what kind of distinction you are trying to make between "personal legacy" and "presidential legacy," or why you contend such a distinction is relevant: all our presidential biographies cover both, as they should. Neutrality^talk 19:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I never said there was a distinction between a personal legacy and a presidential legacy. My point is simply that North Korea's nuclear arsenal — and its military capabilities in general — have developed over decades. It is not part of Trump's legacy. What he did — working in concert with Moon — was open a dialogue with Kim. This dialogue did not lead to the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear armaments but it did lead to an atmosphere of truce for several years. After a flurry of atomic bomb and ICBM tests, there was a moratorium which has held for three years. There are many sources which argue that North Korea has enhanced its nuclear arsenal in the mean time. But the same is true under preceding presidents. To say this is an "ultimate outcome" is highly misleading. It is merely the status quo. This should be an article about what Trump did. Not what he didn't do.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is also wrong to argue for the addition of this sentence without addressing the issue of length. Simply citing sources doesn't justify it in an article of this size.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I also disagree with Scjessey's view that there is only one interpretation of Trump's approach to North Korea. There are several — not mutually exclusive — interpretations, including:

• He was following sound policy — a view apparently held by Bill Clinton.[20][21][22][[23][24]
• The total nuclear disarmament of North Korea was an unrealistic goal.[25][26]
• "Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump: this is a 20-year failure of American foreign policy", according to James Rubin.[27]
• Trump's involvement was a sideshow compared with North–South dialogue.[28]
• Trump was out of his depth on foreign policy.[29][30]
• Trump's approach was isolationist.[31]
• Trump was a Manchurian Candidate.

This makes me think we need an article about Donald Trump and North Korea...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: 2018–20 Korean peace process would be a good start for this, perhaps using some material from North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. — JFG ^talk 15:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. Not a particularly good article... Started by me...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Arrest warrants

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not mention the arrest warrants from Iraq/Iran since the unenforceable warrants were mostly symbolic and political which had no lasting notability as it became old news after a while. And also because it is already sufficiently mentioned in the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and Foreign Policy of the Donald Trump administration articles. Non-admin close by PyroFloe (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Continuing from the discussion above, should it be mentioned in the article that Trump has two arrest warrants issued by Iraq and Iran for the killing of Soleimani? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The two sentences can be seen removed here.

Sources: Reuters, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Euronews, The Sun, Fox8, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Daily Mail, France24, Khaleej Times, Haaretz. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - It's theatre, like the Vermont towns that wanted to arrest Bush & Cheney. ValarianB (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It may be somewhat more relevant. I wish that SD had mentioned what the warrants had been issued for in opening this discussion. They are specifically related to the US killing of Soleimani. That the US did this and that Trump ordered it isn't disputed, and is directly admitted to by the US and Trump. In general, the issuance of such arrest orders would be theater. A town in Vermont doesn't even stand to have jurisdiction over something as nebulous as "crimes against our Constitution." However, the charges in the warrants regarding Trump are not so nebulous. They are specifically related to the killing of Soleimani, which Trump admits he ordered. As he was an Iranian general, Iran definitely has at least the appearance of standing to issue such a warrant, and the crime took place on Iraqi soil while Soleimani was in Iraq on official business with the Iraqi government, so they also have at least the appearance of standing to issue such a warrant. The general idea that he has arrest warrants out on him isn't necessarily notable, but the fact that the warrants are specifically regarding the killing of Soleimani and issued by countries that actually have jurisdiction regarding that killing, that is. We discuss the killing of Soleimani in this article, and I do think that it is worth mentioning, as one sentence, that Iran and Iraq responded with the issuance of arrest warrants. We mention in that very section how Trump publicly threatened to retaliate against Iranian retaliation of firing at US bases in Iraq by saying he would attack Iranian cultural sites. We go so far as to say such retaliation on Trump's part would have been a war crime. But, that retaliation never happened, so is that not also just "theater"? If we are going to mention the proposed, but never executed retaliation against a retaliation against the killing of Soleimani, I don't think it is unreasonable to add the arrest warrants by the countries in question against Trump for the killing of Soleimani, even though they likely will never happen. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I added that they were issued for the killing of Soleimani.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Since we mention that Trump ordered the assassination of an Iranian general in Iraq, it would make sense to mention that arrest warrants have been issued in those countries. TFD (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It's a direct result of his foreign policy, so it seems relevant to put in with the killing of Soleimani. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes- Very notable and important information that a president has two arrest warrants from two different sovereign nations. Also widely reported in reliable sources. Definitely belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes For reasons I stated above to provide context on why these warrants are relevant to content already in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If we do mention it, this only needs to be mentioned very briefly, along with the events that caused the warrants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See here. it was very briefly, two short sentences.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - He killed Soleimani, this is the direct result. Also, if this was anyone else, it would definitely be included. Just because it's Trump doesn't mean that he's exempt from anything. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not at all. Countries such as Iraq and Iran are known for this sort of "political warrant" - I note that everyone here leaves out that this actually isn't a warrant - it's a request to interpol to arrest Trump - which Interpol denied - because it is a political warrant at its core. The inclusion of this is not any more encyclopedic than including the number of warts someone had on their foot as a child or some other random fact. And no, I don't think this sort of "political shitposting" should be included on anyone's article. These warrants are meaningless and absolutely not notable/important as they will never be actioned on by Interpol or any country other than the two that issued them - because they're political and under false pretenses to begin with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per precedent. We always mention it in articles on citizens of other countries who are subjects of US arrest warrants. Iraq and Iran are (reasonably large) sovereign countries just like the US. As noted, also widely reported in RS. --Tataral (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• No – How many people have had fatwas issued against them? — JFG ^talk 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Apples and oranges. A court issues arrest warrant isn't a fatwa. We shouldn't be comparing it to a fatwa when it isn't a fatwa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes -- notable, precedent, etc. I understand Berchanhimez's argument here, but the comparison to foot warts seems...unfitting. There's an argument this might not be the thing on the article that exists the most out of someone's head, but it's regardless still a non-trivial international event. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - if a previously notable person takes a notable action, and a foreign country puts out an arrest warrant for this person, it certainly should be mentioned. 46.117.5.72 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• No Look at the dates of all all these news articles. They're all from the day the stories were first reported. I've tried finding more than were included here, and it's basically impossible. That's a big indication that this is just a minor event with no real importance: Iran's arrest warrants were newsworthy on the 30th of June, Iraq's warrant was newsworthy on the 7th of January, and both were forgotten by the next week. And it's easy to see why: these arrest warrants will not in any way affect Trump's life going forward. It's an interesting factoid, but just not important enough to include in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• No per Red Rock Canyon. These are totally unenforceable warrants with no lasting notability, a complete political/media soundbite, and there’s no reason to mention them here. Total bloat. “Media covered something” is not sufficient to demonstrate notability of an event in this article, because anything Trump does gets covered by reliable media. If he spills an ice cream, that’ll be reported. Actually, unironically, it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per Red Rock Canyon and ProcrastinatingReader. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per Red Rock Canyon, ultimately I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. The warrants are sufficiently covered in Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the Soleimani killing subsection in Foreign Policy of the Donald Trump administration. All of the above sources seem to be based on a few press agency reports (Reuters, AP, AFP), they all mention that Interpol does not accept requests of "political, military, religious or racial character," and no further mention after that. NY Times quotes an expert on saying that it's a largely symbolic step and part of Iran's "narrative of U.S. injustice." Undue for the top Trump biography. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - Space4Time3Continuum2x states my view. Neutrality^talk 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per all above. These "arrest warrants" are largely of interest to the countries that launched them. They have, and will have, zero impact on the biography of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• No These reflect only the internal politics of the two nations. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verb tense in the lead

I've been squeezing out outdated verb tenses in the article today - the annoying "has been", etc. I think that's for the better. In some cases it is modestly premature, but seemed innocuous to change now. I post here because I see such verb tenses (unsure of the precise wording to describe "has ...") are also in the lead; it would be a simple matter to correct such verbs to a simple past tense. But it is the lead, so I solicit something like a green light to just do it. e.g. "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." should be left alone, but "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made many false and misleading statements..." to "His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements...", etc. Bdushaw (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest we wait until after the 20th (at which time I suspect it have all its changes made at once, by some who has them all lined up and ready to slam into the article the minute Biden says "so help me God". I also suspect the page will be full-protected on that day to stop people from changing it prematurely.) After the inauguration-day changes have been made, we can then decide about any remaining verb tenses. In your example I would agree with changing "have sparked" to "sparked", but not with changing "has made" to "made" false statements, because that is likely to be ongoing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggested changing "have sparked" to "sparked" some time back, but there was no consensus. Editors argued that someone in Australia raising an eyebrow counted as a protest. Hence, so long as there are eyebrows somewhere, and the infamy of Trump continues to be noised abroad, the protests will continue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The tense is called Present perfect (simple) - it tends to be ignored more often in US English where simple past is relied on more, especially in spoken or informal English. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A link to the "2021 storming of the United States Capitol" should be included in the last statement of the lede

This is turning out to be the most notable event of his presidency, and hence should be linked to in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.226.125 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It already is. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, lede, not lead. The lede is for a description about the person, not the presidency. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the fact he is the only president to be impeached twice be higher in the introduction?

He is the only US president that this happened to, does this mean it should appear higher in the introduction?

John Cummings (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that he was impeached twice, but it is completely unnecessary to say that he is the only president for this to happen. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another perspective is that half of all impeachments in US history have been of Donald Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Presidential impeachments, that is. Three quarters of them have been in my lifetime. And Nixon was almost impeached, also in my lifetime. There is a trend towards more impeachments. Perhaps in the future every President will be impeached at least once...?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph

The first paragraph of the lead normally serves to briefly summarise the key aspects of the article. The current first paragraph doesn't do a very good job at that. It says nothing about how his presidency is not viewed as a "normal" presidency; he wasn't just a boring businessman who was elected to some office, did nothing spectacular, and then left, like a lot of elected officials. You have to read endless details about his beauty pageants and golf courses and so on and so forth until you get to the truly important material in the last paragraph of the lead, his violent insurrection against US democracy, his two impeachments, the things that really made history, the unprecedented scandalous nature of his presidency.

Therefore, I propose that we add a short sentence at the end of the first parapgraph that briefly summarises the extraordinary aspects of his presidency, including his two impeachments. I tentatively propose:

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

--Tataral (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tataral, what do you think about the second paragraph? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally, a lead section is structured somewhat chronologically and/or thematically, with the exception of the first paragraph that serves as a mini summary of the article. The second para discusses his background and business career, and that's ok as long as the first para adequately summarises the lead and article. --Tataral (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I mixed up first, second and third paragraph. I didn't count the first paragraph as paragraph. I thought your proposal was to add something at the end of the second paragraph, immediately before the third paragraph, adding redundance. Never mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support — his presidency will be perhaps best remembered for this. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for 70 years he was known as a buisnessman and an entertainer. How it is writen is a good summary of his life and not just the last four years of it Anon0098 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are written relative to the importance of the material. His pre-presidential career owning a couple of beauty pageants is dwarfed in importance by his presidency a million times over. I hadn't even heard of him until 2015. --Tataral (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just because you hadn't heard of him before doesn't mean no one else had. He was a relatively major social figure prior to his presidency, which is partly why it was so shocking that he was elected. Saying he was a buisnessman and entertainer as well as president is a suitable introduction before chronologically detailing his life. Nothing more in depth needs to be added to the lede. Anon0098 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with Anon0098 — we have to acknowledge his first 70 years. And this has recently been discussed. See above. An impeachment without a conviction — or two impeachments without a conviction, which looks like being the case — doesn't amount to much. It is the equivalent of being charged with a crime but being acquitted. I don't believe anything Trump has been involved in will be remembered as much as the Watergate scandal. Most people now do not remember why Bill Clinton was impeached — if they ever knew. Yes, Trump has had a turbulent term, but it's only four years of his life, and he hasn't been convicted of anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  That is stunningly contrary to published sources, opinion polling, and the nature of this encyclopedia. His recent fame as a TV personality is one among thousands of these - they come and go. Tell us about Arthur Godfrey, Bill Cullen, and John Daly -- all more famous than Trump in their heydays. Your personal opinion about Trump vs. Nixon is not only irrelevant, but like the notability stuff it's also contrary to RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support adding "impeached twice", without comment on his political career. Yes, he had 70 long, divisive, years before politics. But, and I don't think this is really CRYSTALBALL, he will be primarily remembered for getting impeached twice. It would probably be wrong to mention he (is/was) president without that footnote, even. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The notability of T****'s presidency, corruption, and impeachments dwarf his ancient business career, so include it all in the first paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ancient??? How is it ancient???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support: We do need to acknowledge that they were doing something, (real estate work?) before their presidential term, and early life/ background sections serve this purpose sufficiently. Their presidential term, public perception of it, and their creating history by accomplishing two impeachments in a single term are the most notable highlights that make this subject notable for a Wikipedia article, and I would expect to see them in the introductory paragraph in any article about them. _morelMW^illiam
• Comment: Today, a sentence describing Trump as the first American president of the United States to have no prior military or government career, and was at the time the oldest first-term U.S. president was added to the first paragraph of the lead that we are discussing here. This is not what I would prioritize in that paragraph, and the material about his age is almost trivial here. I would rather see a sentence that said something of substance about his presidency, as proposed above rather than pointing out his age or his background (which is discussed in detail in the very next paragraph). --Tataral (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose that claim made in the first paragraph falls afoul of WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to this being a WP:BLP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason why the first paragraph should change. It does its job fine and follows the past several presidential articles in being a simple, fact based overview of the person's life. The language suggested for the sentence would also make the article appear even more biased than it already does, by trying to realign the lead to focus even more on purely negative aspects about Trump. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  "fact based overview of the person's life": Except that it doesn't, it leaves out the most important aspects. Other well-developed articles on heads of state, especially those who weren't considered "normal" or "routine" officeholders, include something about what they are famous for. E.g. the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler (Note: not a general comparison of Trump and Hitler, just the structure of their articles), which doesn't just state when he was chancellor and his former profession, but the key aspects of his rule as well. The current paragraph was essentially written before Trump took office, before there was much to say about his presidency. It does no longer adequately summarise his life, after he has become known as the "most corrupt" and "worst" US president in history, the only one to be impeached twice, for inciting an insurrection and so on. --Tataral (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Being the first president to be impeached twice is not merely noteworthy, it's historic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is one of the main things that trump is known for. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This is simply not the kind of thing that belongs in the first sentence/lead paragraph of a biography. That section defines, in the most concrete and neutral manner, who the person is or was, and what they have done. And that's all. The lead paragraph is absolutely not the place for throwing in a judgment call about how they performed during the last four years. If something like this is to be added, it should be at the END of the lead section, where we are talking about his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Language copied from thread above

I propose the language proposed above by @Neutrality: be combined with the language under discussion above and be placed in the first or second paragraph of the lead. To wit, let's combine this

Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat. Trump attempted to overturn the results by making false claims of electoral fraud, pressuring government officials, mounting dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, and stymieing the presidential transition. During Congress's counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump urged supporters to march on the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to evacuate.

with this,

Throughout his presidency he has been widely accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he has been impeached twice.

SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Still against the "has been" verb tense...unsure what "widely" means...

Throughout his presidency he was regularly accused of abuse of power and corruption, and he was twice impeached.

 ? Bdushaw (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy

The opening blurb, and search bubble, needs to mention that he is twice impeached. Thisreallyisaj (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead already does mention that he has been impeached twice. Mgasparin (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent WP:BOLD changes to the lede

GUtt01, disregarding numerous inline warnings, made numerous substantial changes to the lede in this series of edits, including edits that modified the first paragraph contrary to Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #17. Some of these edits are cosmetic, some are not (e.g., saying that his presidency drew stern criticism, primarily from Democrats). I see no reason to change the language so drastically, given the hard-won (and extensively flagged) consensus as to the language of the lede. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Without changing the language, could someone tell me if the lead of the article looks right? I compared it to articles for previous presidents, and felt it needed to reflect the style of their leads as such (such as Obama and Bush). GUtt01 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The point is not whether it "looks right". The point is whether it reflects consensus. The status quo reflects consensus: that's why it was flagged with so may inline comments saying "do not change without consensus". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Will it likely change in time to be similar to articles of previous presidents? GUtt01 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Depending on what the future consensus is, it may or may not. But there's no rule saying that bios of US presidents have to follow the same pattern. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigations

I trimmed the investigations section in these two edits but was reverted. It was only removing tenuous and extraneous detail, and doesn't change anything about Donald Trump's associations with the Russian government. The sub-articles contain all these details. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed a large chunk of the section on hush-money aka non-disclosure payments with the edit summary "minor trimming." Reliable sources, content had been thoroughly discussed - that's not minor trimming. You removed another part of the non-disclosure payments section but didn't mention it in the edit summary. Why? And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump (also with reliable sources and thoroughly discussed) must be removed because there hasn't been a trial. Indeed, there hasn't been, there being that little obstacle of Trump being president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an entire article on the non-disclosure payments, and all I did was trim the content that was on this article. All the main facts that anybody would need to know if they wanted a brief analysis remained in the article, as supported by the fact you haven't raised what parts I removed. If you don't actually object to the removal on that but object to the edit summaries then that is a separate point and I don't mind discussing that. The edit summary clearly names the section that I was trimming.

Extended detail about Russian agents overhearing Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn belongs on articles about those individuals, and on articles about those particular events. Trump being president doesn't prevent Manafort or Flynn from being tried and convicted in a court, but I'm not sure what point you're making there. I certainly don't think that the only content that can be here is from courts which have convicted individuals.

Most of all, don't misrepresent the edits either, as there are talk page readers who may not go through the links and rely on an account such as yours. You say And you state that Manafort and Stone's Russia connections and federal agents overhearing Russian agents during the campaign saying they could use Manafort and Flynn to influence Trump must be removed because there hasn't been a trial., but my edits clearly show that the article still said, after my edits, Russian agents were overheard during the campaign saying they could use Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn to influence Trump. I ask you to withdraw that comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My apology for the Russian agent sentence. Wasn’t expecting part of the text highlighted as deleted in the left column to show up as added text in the right one (or whatever was going on there) and didn’t see it. While taking another look at your edits, I also noticed that—prior to the two edits Specifico reverted—you had already edited the "hush payments" section (original title), changing the title to non-disclosure payments and deleting all mention of AMI. However, Karen McDougal had a contract with AMI, not with Donald Trump or Cohen’s EC, LLC. Neither of the agreements was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (Forbes, and none of the sources refer to it as such.

McDougal entered into a Name and Rights License Agreement with AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer) which had an amendment that prohibited McDougal to speak or write about her alleged relationship with Donald Trump (McDougal's complaint). In Daniels’s case, it was a "Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; Assignment of Copyright and Non-Disparagment Agreement" (they misspelled disparagement), and the parties were Peggy Peterson (whose signature reads Stephanie Clifford, Daniels’s legal name) and EC, LLC (the company Cohen had set up for the sole purpose of paying Daniels) and/or the pseudonymous David Dennison (Trump) who didn’t sign it (Daniel's complaint).

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, hush-money is the colloquial expression for a bribe to secure silence and the expression used by the sources. I haven't found a single source for "non-disclosure payments." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, this confidentiality provision is not what's meant by NDA. Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course I removed mentions of AMI. This is a biography article about Donald Trump, and the intricate details about how these agreements were made aren't due here. All that is relevant here, if anything, is that these payments were made to two individuals to hide their sexual relationships to Donald Trump. Michael Cohen's role would also be relevant, but not everything about it.

"Non-disclosure payments" is a far more proper title than "hush money", which you admit is colloquial. If editors think that "non-disclosure" sounds too much like a non-disclosure agreement, then I suggest we move to calling them confidentiality agreements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Admit?" Makes it sound as though I think it's improper and/or unencyclopedic language which isn't the case. It's pertinent and to the point. The section is about the pay-offs, and the heading needs to reflect that. AMI also admitted having bought the rights to McDougal's story to influence the election, and their records have been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney. Tomorrow Trump will lose presidential immunity. What's your rush? Let's wait and see if and how this plays out in court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been editing this article for at least a year now, what rush are you referring to? We can report on any of the details about this, even if they are only allegations or not proved in a court, just not on this article. This is an article about the entirety of Donald Trump and this only deserves a couple of sentences as most, so the role of AMI is completely undue for this article, but is absolutely justified to be in articles specifically about the topic of these payments. As for the title, the issue is that we need to have encyclopaedic titles, so it should be "confidentiality payments". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

123, you are repeating your stated position without providing any policy-and-sourcing based rationale and without responding to the arguments of the editors who oppose your view. Without a specific rebuttal there's no need to repeat your opinion. The role of AMI to proxy for Trump is a highly noteworhty example of his frequent modus operandi and is widely discussed and reported by RS as characteristic of "the entirety of Donald Trump." SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You are expecting me to show sources that say AMI was not significant in Donald Trump's life? I don't mind saying that a proxy entity was used, but it's really irrelevant exactly how the payments were made. What's important is that the payments were made, and reliable sources give far more attention to Michael Cohen's role than AMI's. I didn't think anybody actually rejected these assertions about the balance of sources, but I'm willing to provide sources. Likewise with policy, is anybody seriously rejecting that this article should only summarise his life, and not describe every event in detail? If they are, of course I'll link to policy for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

1. That's a straw man. 2. Nobody agrees with you. SPECIFICO talk 10:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this line necessary?

Last line of the social media section:

"Tweets Trump then sent from the government's official POTUS account were removed quickly, and when he posted them on his campaign and Dan Scavino's accounts, those accounts were suspended too."

It's awkwardly worded and pretty specific for this article. Could it be replaced with something like:

"Since then, Trump has been banned on numerous other social media platforms, including Snapchat, Twitch, and Shopify."

Source: https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html ChipotleHater (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I've boldly gone ahead and made the change. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SkyWarrior 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• @SkyWarrior: I would've changed it, if I had permission. But thank you! ChipotleHater (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

March on the Capitol

The line should read "he urged his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol, which some of them then stormed" . But seeing that people who have "4 days until the nightmare is over"-banners (refering the the Trump presidency) on their user pages are allowed to edit and others are not, I know you won't agree with me no matter what. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He said a lot more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As this is subject to a trial in the Senate, and other legal action, I don't think it's appropriate for us to cast judgment on this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RS reported what he said. That has nothing to do with a trial. SPECIFICO talk 08:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to quote him, let's just say that reliable sources consider Trump to have done X, Y and Z. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

He also said to "fight like hell". Is that peaceful? Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Peaceful people say things like that all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As do violent ones. Peaceful people don't generally have lawyers calling for "trials by combat" to decide elections at the same event. However, one should leave personal judgment out of this when we have RS, and we have plenty. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agh, I heard Rudy Giuliani's voice right there. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We follow RS and, as applicable, WP:BLP. The section of that article on presumption of innocence doesn't say that we sanitize and remove everything reported by RS until a guilty verdict has been reached. Indeed, especially for public figures, it is specifically outlined how to word it. Feel free to add "allegedly" if you would like, but the "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean sanitizing well reported, reliably sourced, serious allegations. As it stands, he has been impeached (so essentially indicted) on the charge of insurrection. That the trial has not happened yet doesn't mean we don't report his impeachment on the charge of insurrection, and such content would need to include what RS have to say about it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. See WP:BLPCRIME.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Editorial bias in "Recognition" section

Well, I added a couple of the awards that Trump was given from other countries including, yesterday, the highest award from Morocco, the Order of Muhammad, and they were immediately deleted as "TRIVIA" (15:44, 16 January 2021), leaving eventually the ONLY entry in that section being that Trump had had relatively trivia honorary doctorates revoked! Wikipedia really needs to get its act together on political topics as neutrality has gone out of the window in recent years, using highly selective citations to push agendas rather than attempting to obtain a broader NPOV. Harami2000 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To my mind it should be a list (if we must have it) of only highly respected awards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, Morocco's highest order is probably notable. I definitely don't support a list, though. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a main article (List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump) where both awards plus all the other major and minor honors are listed. Who gets to make the decision whether the orders from Marocco, Kosovo, and Saudi Arabia are more important than the ones from Georgia (the country), Afghanistan, or Kentucky? The revocation of honorary doctorates is notable because it's way out of the ordinary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't include things for being unordinary though, which would be trivia. I removed some honours a while ago but kept the doctorates being awarded and revoked, but maybe we shouldn't have such a section at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a "Recognition" section which was deliberately edited to ONLY list revoked honorary doctorates (effectively DE-recognition) to the exclusion of the highest possible awards that countries can give would seem, to me at least, to be open to charges of POV. No section at all is preferable, albeit that could still be seen as "sweeping any positives under the carpet" as relatively few people will ever look at the "awards" page. Harami2000 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be OK with removing the whole section. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as there's the separate page. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 03:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember folks, if RS don't care why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to push editorial responsibility on this article “onto RS” is a mistake in reasoning. That ideology breaks down for someone like Trump, whose every action (or inaction) is covered by RS, even including when he gets 2 scoops of ice cream rather than 1. To say inclusion (or lack thereof) in this article isn’t wholly editorial discretion is simply not true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So is relying on wp:or to determine what is and is not a notable award. But we do have wp:undue so we can say "if a major RS does not deem this noteworthy neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s a hazy line with this particular subject is all I’m saying. Whether content should be covered here, in a related article, or not at all, is often total editorial discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned comment by 24.112.191.139

Where is the section on his booming economy pre COVID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.191.139 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a whole article about Trump's economic policy here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Intro section needs work, please.

Just an example, "Five people died in the melee" is inaccurate and fails npov.

Later and older sections stick to the facts, and illustrate the paradoxical and ephemeral quality of this president's accomplishments, like the quote "The New York Times reported in 1973 and 1976 that he had graduated first in his class at Wharton, but he had never made the school's honor roll." That section is well-written and careful. It correctly leaves as an open question why on earth the New York Times did that, it is just a fact that they did.

The first section reads like an angry middle-school student being a bully or ranting against a bully. It contains untruths also. Createangelos (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the issue with "Five people died in the melee"? Is it the use of the word "melee"? — Czello 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly a melee...I believe the issue is "in the", which, there is a point there. I think four people died from other health issues, while the policeman died afterward - at least there are details to the deaths, and they did not die "in the melee". I am trying to move away from this article (again), but suggest "died as a result of the melee" as perhaps more accurate; we try to be succinct at our peril. It is notable that a policeman died, and there were other injuries; I am unsure of the RS, however. Bdushaw (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

About the 5 deaths/CNN I forgot about the lady that was shot. Bdushaw (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

His 2000 presidential run should be included in the article's lead, as it denotes part of his political history. Also, "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, Trump rallied his supporters and exhorted them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed. Congress evacuated, and five people died in the melee. Seven days later, the House of Representatives impeached him again, for "incitement of insurrection", making him the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice." is overly wordy.

An alternative could be "Hours before the ceremonial counting of the electoral votes, Trump rallied his supporters, exhorting them to march to the Capitol, which they then stormed, forcing Congress to temporarily evacuate and resulting in the deaths of five people. In January 2021, the House of Representatives impeached him again for incitement of insurrection, making him the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice." MrloniBoo (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's overly wordy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in lead not supported by body

the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice is not the same thing as the (apparently -- sorry, I don't have an NYT subscription) sourced statement in the body that he is the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The majority of federal officeholders in the United States to have been impeached were not presidents so the statement in the body doesn't imply the statement in the lead, and the lead is not allowed make different claims from the article body. Since it does seem that he is both the first U.S. president and the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice, I think a sourced statement to the latter effect should be incorporated into the body and the lead left unchanged, but what do others think? Since I don't have access to the source in the body to check whether it supports both claims, and since I don't advocate changing the lead, I can't make this change myself, but given the article I'd probably have taken it to talk first anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this discrepancy. The lead is correct; I have fixed the text. What happened is that all the initial reporting said "first U.S. President," and it wasn't until later that people searched the records and discovered that in fact this is the first time that ANY U.S. officeholder has been impeached twice. I added a source.[32] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Trump isn't the first US officeholder, as HuffPo.au and now the body of the article claim. It's only a narrowly defined subset of US officeholders who can be impeached. The above-linked List of formal impeachments uses the word officers per the Constitution. Under current statutory U.S. definitions, all of the individuals listed are federal officials, and a few of them are also federal officeholders. Per 11 CFR 113.1, a "federal officeholder" is defined as an individual elected to or serving in the office of President or Vice President of the United States; or a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States.. Per 44 USCS § 3315, a "federal official" is any individual holding the office of President or Vice President of the United States, or Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States, or any officer of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the Federal Government. Other officeholders receive notices of termination. The lead says "federal officeholder" which is correct but currently only refers to four people. We'd probably be better off to stick to "first president," less chance for confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice" - removed from lead

The statement that Trump is the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice was recently removed from the lead section, with the edit summary "Reverting recently added trivia."

I disagree with this removal, and find it frankly baffling. His unprecedented second impeachment seems to me to be an obviously defining feature of his presidency and his life. Notably, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions this exact fact in the fourth sentence of its entry on Trump ("Trump was the third president in U.S. history (after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and the only president to be impeached twice...").

Given that this is a high-traffic article and is on the main page right now, I'm seeking views of others with a view to an expedited restoration of this content. Neutrality^talk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Restore (as OP). Neutrality^talk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore At worst, it's innocuous, but it is just a few words and widely noted in RS. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need this kind of trivia here. It's more than sufficient to say that he was impeached twice. We don't need to astonish readers with peculiar facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Jack Upland. JLo-Watson (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore It is historic and encyclopedic. A defining characteristic of this period--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore. This isn’t a trivial statistic. It’s an important fact that distinguishes Trump from all other officeholders, including the two presidents who were impeached before him. I would prefer the term "president," though, which is also used by Encyclopedia Brittanica. In the body we can mention that he was the only president and federal officer who was graced with this honor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is not a place to dump trival statistics about he is the First to do X or Y or the only X to do Z. We summarise meaning content in the lead not first Xs or Ys which have little or no encylopedic value. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Restore While I fully appreciate the arguments being made by those voting oppose (I guess it does fall under the "trivia" banner a little bit), I feel that this is so significant that it does require a mention. That said, I think the lead is currently way too big so I'm not super passionate about it being there. — Czello 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore It is not trivial in the slightest to note in the lead, it is the defining aspect of the man's presidency. There have been 4 impeachments in 232 years; one man holds half of them, nearly within a single calendar year. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Restore per nom and ValarianB. lovkal (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

At what time tomorrow should the word "current" be removed from the description of Donald Trump's presidency?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Donald Trump's presidency is coming to a close. At what time should it be removed? Félix An (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On January 20, 2021, when Biden is sworn in. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

More specifically, 12pm Eastern time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To be exact, his term automatically expires at noon, even if Biden isn't sworn it yet. (For example, even if Biden officially takes the oath at 12:03 p.m., which would not be unusual, Trump still is no longer the president at 12:00:00 pm.) Neutrality^talk 01:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I always remove currants right away.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace old signature?

Current signature in infobox, from 2009.

Newer signature, from 2016.

Currently, File:Donald Trump Signature.svg (shown on the right) is displayed as Trump's signature in the infobox. This signature's source is from 2009, while File:Donald J. Trump signature.svg's source (file is shown below) is from 2016, which is 7 years more recent. Should the signature be changed to the more recent version? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. People's signatures can and do change over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There is another discussion about this change as well, from 4 years ago. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, in my opinion, signatures change from time to time however the signatures here look the same to me, the only difference I noticed is the thickness of the pen used to sign. PyroFloe (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The signatures are very different, so this and other "opposes" on similarity-grounds maybe should be discounted. Look at the horizontal lines, the uniformity of signature strokes, and the second signature is a much smoother version than the first, which looks hurried (it was sold by an Indiana autograph firm, and the link on the signature page is labeled 'dead link' so there is also the question of authenticity). In any case, the second signature is the more familiar of the two, and not written in a hurried manner as the first seems to be. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the more recent signature is much smoother (notice the horizontal-line of the 2016 example), and the thicker pen is what people are used to recently seeing in news coverage of Trump's bill signings. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the newer signature is more contemporary and noticeably different from the old one. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, aside from the thicker pen, it really doesn't look all that different. Mgasparin (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - while signatures do change over time, this is more a variant than a change. A "change" would be to include a middle name, initial, or something significant which this isn't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've thought about this, and have changed my opinion. Arguments seem to be in two camps:
  • The signature is different to his old one. If that's the case, then is surely should be updated to the new one.
  • The signature is hardly any different. If that's true, and the two are essentially the same, then it makes sense to use the more recent version.
  • Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - my signature from seven years ago is certainly different. This new variant is also used in all of his bills as president. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Farewell Address of US President Trump

Farewell Address of President Donald J. Trump-6h5 d3DUdR4

Can we add the Farewell Address? -- Eatcha 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate in the Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q4-January 2021) article or presidency article. Mgasparin (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think just adding the video would be fine. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• No More appropriate: a summary of Trump's post-insurrection post-twitter messaging and the filmed, scripted communications strategy. The individual videos have not been reported as significant. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What is actually going to happen to the lead?

The discussion above regarding what to change the lead to seems to have no consensus. Obviously, something has to happen in ~75 minutes, but what should it be? The last proposal (with Levivich's adaptation) Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States, serving from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and real estate developer. seems to have the strongest consensus as a temporary solution. I will be monitoring the page closely to prevent any disruption, and so can make any changes if needed. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Describing him as "was the 45th president" makes it seem like he has died. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Obama's lede says "is an American politician and attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017", and Bush before him says "is an American politician, businessman, and artist who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009". Why are we not using the same format of "who served as the..." here as well? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We are not bound to follow wording from other articles. This needs to be decided on this page. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, well we've got half an hour. One suggestion is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and real estate developer. I re-iterate my point that this will most likely be a temporary solution. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason to change "businessman" to "real estate developer" or "before entering politics" to "before being elected" we should try to keep the changes to a minimum. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use this temporarily. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep it simple change it to: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politican who was/served as the 45th president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Was makes it seem like he’s dead. Saying he “is an American politician” seems to be problematic, however, as politics has only been a few years of his life. Though his legacy will be as a president, not a businessman, I’m not sure that directly correlates with being a politician. Obama and Bush were career politicians. But, well, “is an American businessman who served as the 45th president” sounds off. No objections to Giraffer’s temporary solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Was - There has been reasoned opposition to "served as". We don't say "Tommy Lasorda served as mgr of the Dodgers" or "John Gotti served as head of the Gambino crime family." or "Gandhi served as the liberator of India." SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Last I checked, Gandhi was dead. Same with the other two. Also, Trump is still alive I presume. So this comparison is already fundamentally flawed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader (I apologise for the mass ping but this is urgent). Unless anyone has any major opposition I'm going to go with Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and buisninessman. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't say was at all: that implies that he died. We say Donald Trump is the former President or whatever. — Czello 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, was is misleading. Giraffer, I support that lead as long as the wikilcnks are not removed. It's clean and simple. Mandoto (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)