Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n].

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. 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. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value (currently $3.5 billion), and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (current edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected without prior military or governmental service. (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

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. (link 1, link 2)

11. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (This is under discussion)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

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

15. 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 has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.[1] No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link)

Open RfCs

• #RfC - LGBT rights
• #Request for comments (RFC) about whether the lead paragraph should say he's the current president

RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

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.

---

Close requested.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is about the final phrase of a sentence in the lede -

Current Version: He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

The question is whether to replace the current wording of the final phrase. The earlier part of the sentence is a consensus version and is not under discussion here, only the final phrase. This has been extensively discussed above, and after much discussion and compromise we have come up with the following choices, which should be the basis of this RfC.

• • Option 1: The wording currently in the article: ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
  • Option 2: ...and the fifth to have lost the national popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 ". . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote ' SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 4: ...and the fifth after losing the national popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment if you can support the following new wording for the end of the election summary paragraph in the lede.

1.

...and the fifth president to have lost the popular vote.

Reasoning: I think "the fifth ___" is too abbreviated. "to have lost" because "to lose" implies he we president before he lost the popular vote. "losing the popular vote" is wording that many sources use even though it is not a contest to be won or lost or even part of any criteria for being president. If you do not support, please say why. Bod (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Bodhi Peace: You need to show a full sentence so that editors know the context. The ending must follow from the beginning of the sentence in tense and verb form. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural note – The anonymous poster of this RfC should have obtained local consensus in the ongoing discussions before throwing their preferred wording to RfC. — JFG ^talk 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Preference

• Option 2 Option 3 This version is much clearer and is more in line with how Reliable Sources have described the outcome.[3] [4] [5] [6] "Plurality" is kind of an obscure word and is not necessarily clear to all readers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I prefer Option 3, I would accept Option 2, and I oppose Option 1. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I also oppose the newly added Option 4 as unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind, then? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The version I previously accepted was something like "the fifth to become president after losing the popular vote". That was clear. "The fifth after losing the popular vote" is not clear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Okay, thanks Melanie. I like support those options, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's not about the sources, it's about the grammar. "To have lost" does not match the sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, to lose the national popular vote. That matches. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I got distracted by Bodhi's wording, which as far as I know has never been proposed before. I meant to list the version which seems close to consensus in the discussion above - "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I see that parts of the proposal are getting struck and comments changed; yet another reason to abort this and start over. what we are left with may be a viable RfC despite its rocky start. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Melanie. @MelanieN: I thought we were there on our own, I don't know why Bodhi started an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - There is enough wrong with this RfC to justify an abort. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, if policy permits. I tried to reformulate this into a proper RfC comparing the existing version with the version that seemed to have reach consensus in discussion, but it would be better to start that RfC properly from the beginning. Maybe we could get Bodhi Peace to withdraw this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my agreement with "abort". Bodhi Peace has now struck his original comment and replaced it with the fuller explanation and the three options. This leaves us with a possibly viable RfC. Other people may wish to strike or remove their comments about the earlier procedural problems if they have been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Abort costs only a few hours and results in a far cleaner end product, well worth the cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK policy permits either voluntary withdrawal or a consensus to abort. Obviously I would prefer the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, IAR and WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's about grammar. "To have lost" is bad form in this sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, "To lose the national popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing grammatically wrong with "to have lost". One could argue that it's unnecessarily conplex. But my abort !vote has nothing to do with grammar, so that's moot to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2Option 1 It's been discussed before. "Lost the popular vote" is not a normal way of describing an electoral win. The president of Mexico (36%) and the prime minster of Canada (39%) received a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump, but no one says they "lost the popular vote." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: You sure you made the right choice? Bod (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, now corrected. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Spurious argument. Neither Mexico nor Canada is a de facto two party, de jure winner-take-all system like the United States. And please no other spurious arguments about the US not being a legally mandated 2 party system. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Grammar issue with Option 2 . .to have lost is bad form. . .use plain English. . ."the fifth to lose the popular vote," much better. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural close as above abort vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Point out the national popular vote in 2016, was California vs the rest of the country. Take California out & Trump finishes about 1.5 millions votes ahead of Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Very clear and seems to agree with sources. Nothing wrong with grammar. Similar to proposed version. If @GoodDay: can provide 3 reliable sources, support mentioning CA as the sole reason for the defeat in the popular vote. Of course, either #2 or #3 is better than current. Bod (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – Can't make sense of all this back-and-forth editing of the question by multiple people, plus random comments in the !votes. — JFG ^talk 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 (both seem equally good to me.) They seem to reflect how it's covered in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's perfectly understandable, avoids calling Trump a loser which is totally unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ist choice Option 3 or 2nd choiceOption 2, clear simple, linked to relevant article for those who don't understand the concept and 'college' system. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 - That's what happened and was reported. Objective3000 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Objective3000: Note above MelanieN's change of vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose either 2 or 3. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please choose either 2 or 3. Note above, MelanieN changed her vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose just one. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3, there is no requirement that people choose one only. If they don't express a preference they can be counted as support for both; if they have a first choice and a second choice they can say that. Personally my !vote would be "prefer Option 3; accept Option 2; oppose Option 1", and I should probably clarify that above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 has not been excluded has it? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If Opt2 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 2. If Opt 3 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 3. Just end it. Objective3000 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Abort per above. Rerun later... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2. Achieving "less than a plurality" in a popular vote in the United States is understood as "losing" that vote, which is how reliable sources describe such an outcome, so Option 1 is overly complicated. (It even still links to an article about people who "lost" the popular vote.) I prefer Option 2 over Option 3 because I believe 2 gives a better description. Option 3 describes him as a president who lost the vote, which sounds like losing the vote happened when he was president. Option 2 makes it clear that he took office, having previously lost the vote. At the time he became the president, his loss in the popular vote had taken place earlier; this is correct use of the perfect infinitive tense, and is grammatically correct in the sentence. DavidK93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 – None of the options reflects how the so-called popular vote is covered in reliable sources. Usually it is not mentioned at all: out of twelve randomly picked sources that say Trump won the election ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) I could find only one that makes the distinction between electoral college vote and popular vote (LA Times mentions the popular vote because Sanders brought it up), which suggests that mentioning popular vote gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. There was never a contest for popular vote, hence there can be no winners or losers. If we imply that there were two contests, then we must follow reliable sources and mention U.S. Electoral College. Majority (or plurality) of non-US readers have no clue what the heck electoral college is, which the majority (or plurality) of participants here have not addressed. All suggested options have problems, but the current one is the least worst option. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 4, with mild support for option 3, feeble, arm-twisting support for option 2, and total opposition to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Opt.3 makes it plain he lost the popular vote. That's the real issue. Won the presidency, lost the popular vote. Keep in mind, loads of people don't want any mention of him losing anything. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Mild support" means exactly that. I'd prefer the "after losing" construct, but I've already agreed to the "to lose" construct in option 3 that you prefer. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It's perfectly fine and neutral, I find it ridiculous people are getting unsettled by it. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with option 1 is the word "plurality", which is only familiar to the small percentage of Americans with an interest in electoral politics. It is not used at all in all the other English-speaking nations of the world, which the English language Wikipedia is meant to cover. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I see no compelling reason to change the long standing content. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's only "long standing" because every attempt to change it has been reverted, and the current version is being "held" until a consensus for a new version is reached. So this is not a convincing argument at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  That section has been brought up over and over. The current wording is what has survived. I doubt anyone is 100% happy with it, but there is something to be said for that being the longest lived. I also see no arguments strong enough to change it. Plus if everyone dislikes it at least a little you know its a good compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Is it possible you didn't actually read my comment? It has only "survived" because it was being held during the near continuous discussions over the last few weeks. Anyway, it appears from the RfC that the existing version is unlikely to survive any longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  I fully read and understand the comments you made, I just disagree with them. At the moment it looks like about 5 votes for 1-3 and 1 vote for 4. So I there is no clear answer which version will win at this point, though it does not look like a clear consensus will be formed. Especially with the number of options presented. Though whatever the outcome I'm sure it will be best for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it is the most suitable and encyclopedic version based on reasoning provided in this RFC and previous discussions.--IntelligentName (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 - or 2 or 4. Option 1's wording is confusing and misleading. Let's keep the language plain and direct. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the most neutral and encyclopedic. Laurdecl ^talk 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Options 2 and 3, although I prefer option 3. Zakawer (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, option 1 – If this trainwreck of an RfC doesn't get suspended, I support status quo Option 1, not because I like the convoluted phrasing, but because all other options emphasize "losing the popular vote" which is a non-existent contest in the US presidential electoral system, and therefore misleading readers with regard to the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. By the same token, a consensus of editors has rightly rejected material stating that Trump "won an overwhelming majority of counties", because that too is a non-existent contest. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have no problem with "losing" the popular vote. Hundreds of high quality sources are available. It may not be technically true, but it's how it is perceived. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Concise wins here. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• option 1 There is no popular vote to win or lose. Such a description is factually incorrect and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the most neutral and accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Summoned by bot. I respond to a lot of these and I wanted to compliment the initiator of this RfC for putting forth a clear and neutral choice. I think Option 3 is worded simplest and most direct, and utilizes language that is clearest. I see no neutrality issue. The current language is not bad either, but 3 is preferable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, perfectly fine and encyclopedic. Don't see the need to change. RoCo^(talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - prefer keeping what it was before, see no need to change. Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is sufficiently neutral (avoids directly calling him a loser) while telling what needs to be told. This is really a minor detail and in the current state it's, as per multiple above, encyclopedic and factually correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Lost ≠ loser, linguistically. It may imply loser, but "loser," in addition to its technical meaning implies an emotional category/judgement, that none of the five options contains. Ergo, spurious argument, nay even a "strawman." Tapered (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

*Option 5 ..."to win (the election) with an electoral college majority while the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote." Further option 1 is intellectually dishonest, grouping the 2 and 3 way anomalies (see one of my previous comments) of 1860, 1912,1992 with 1 other election when the losing candidate did win a majority of the popular vote, and another when the losing candidate outpolled the winner of the electoral vote in a de facto 2 way contest without winning the majority vote. Good grief, am I mistaken or should the options read "sixth?" @Scjessey: Tapered (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The losing candidate in 2016 did not "win a majority of the popular vote". Also, the years to which option #1 refers are 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 (not 1860, 1912, or 1992).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 Avoid anything in the lede that states losing the popular vote. The note of a loss, when the election result was a win, can confuse what is otherwise clearly stated and utterly correct by keeping option 1.Horst59 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Plurality is a more accurate description of the results, as no candidate received a majority vote. It is also more neutral. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Leave as is, I don't see what the problem is and why it needs to be changed in the first place. It's fine the way it is, it's clear, accurate, and neutral. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, just a sidenote, this is one of the most confusing RfCs I've seen in a while, the question keeps being edited, first there were three options and now there are four. It's hard to tell what's going on because of the back and forth side chats in the !votes, just saying. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1. – Because the United States has a constitutional republic it is inaccurate to say a candidate "wins" or "losses" a popular vote count. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Hatting as off topic. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
California was the deciding factor in Clinton getting more popular votes nationwide, then Trump. Remove California from the picture & Trump wins by about 1.5 million. Put that in the proposed changes & mention the 1888 US presidential election (with Texas example) for the other 1-state difference example. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC) This is only relevant if California secedes. Objective3000 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Not even relevant then. If California secedes (which is very unlikely), the California vote in this election would still count. This "don't count California" meme is ridiculous. California has 12% of the entire population of the country - half again as many people as the next largest state, Texas. California has as many people as the 21 least populous states COMBINED. Of course it has a large effect on the popular vote. You might as well say that Hillary won the election - if you don't count Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @MelanieN: Have you seen this? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Reverted. That phrase was not in the current consensus version as per consensus #15. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why the hell does this RfC even exist? I thought we'd come to an agreement further up the talk page? My understanding is that we had already agreed on option 3. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some cannot accept a contrary opinion, I suggest. I am amazed that anybody would thing that "plurality" was a useful word to use. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality is indeed a correct word (among others - majority comes to mind) to use. And anyway, this is exactly what RfC is for - requesting comments from other on potentially controversial changes (or, in this case, whether there should be one or no). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality may be cromulent, but it is uncommon. "Majority" is a much more accessible word. I suggest that those supporting "plurality" wish to obfuscate rather than illuminate. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 election was the nineteenth in which someone was elected with less than a majority. Winning with less than a plurality is much more unusual, and that's why we say "plurality" instead of "majority". The word "plurality" is used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with it, so they can learn. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[19] Moreover, Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2017 (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.

LGBT rights section

Superseded by active RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Please can on the discussion at #RfC - LGBT rights. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I think we should include an LGBT rights section. Right now mention of same sex-marriage is folded into 'social policy.' But as it is important domestic policy in the US and has wide coverage in RS, it should be under a heading of its own. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Are you on about this He personally supports "traditional marriage"[493] but considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue.[516]? If so then I am for keeping it where it is for now, but I am open minded to moving it to a section like you have proposed if their is more content to write. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC) As you may well know, during the campaign he was open to LGBT rights. When asked about gay marriage, he said it was the law of the land. End of. And when asked if Caitlyn Jenner could use the women's room at Trump Tower he said yes. Jenner then went to Trump Tower and after said, "Thank you Donald. Not you Ted," meaning Ted Cruz who opposed it. But now, there's the Texas case on allowing transgender access to bathrooms in schools. I believe the Trump DOJ has withdrawn the objection to the stay. And as he is just in the first 100 days of his presidency, there is more to come. I think it should be established now and with reliable sources rather than buried in this 'social policy,' catchall. Especially as, there is confusion in the LGBT+ community because of the choice of Mike Pence for the VP. The issues should be expanded under its own heading, imho. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Also, this is a civil rights issue, not simply a social issue. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I don't support this proposal, because the political positions section should just be a sumary of many different positions, not singling out particular issues. Perhaps a separate section would be okay at Political positions of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Section wlinks in lead

I plan on changing the Trump-specific wlinks in the lead so that they point to the appropriate sections of this article instead of to other articles. The sections of this article have hatnotes that can take interested readers to other articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your reasoning? That is not standard practice here. We usually have wikilinks throughout articles, including the leads. Barring a very good reason, one that should become part of the MoS and applied to all articles, I see no need to deviate from standard practice. Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that we shouldn't have wikilinks to other articles. We should have them in the lead and also throughout this article. What I'm saying is that, if there's a particular Wikipedia article that is summarized in this article per WP:Summary style, and if the summary includes a hatnote linking to the main article that's being summarized, then the lead here ought to have a section wikilink instead of an article wikilink in that particular type of circumstance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, go for it. BTW, I don't know if this would interest you, but I have a different idea (not for use here) which I've tried in a couple of my essays. Take a look at this one: How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references" -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I just took at look at that. That's a great idea that will work on ton of articles. I will keep it in mind going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. About this! I hope the manual of style is edited accordingly, and I hereby request that you ping me if I can be of any help in that regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that essay a long time ago, but have never tried to get that feature incorporated into our MoS. If there's a chance, then maybe we can move forward and give it a try. Do you think there's a chance? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's worth asking at an MOS talk page before making a formal proposal. I have no idea whether it would fly; some Wikipedians may say that it's already common sense 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time local consensus ought to be allowed to do what they think is appropriate. So if it goes into the MOS then maybe it should be phrased in terms of what is "normally" done or "unless the section is tagged as deficient" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, did you see the discussion here in this section? Your edit apparently goes against the consensus here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC - LGBT rights

Should the Domestic Policy section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights? Please indicate 'support' or 'oppose' below. Please remember to use the discussion section for comments. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This is not a social issue as it is being treated as such in the article at this time. This is an important civil rights issue that Donald Trump has spoken out on. There is widely cited reliable sourcing from the New York Times and WashPo, et al to support this. This is an issue that all presidents, from Reagan on through Obama have dealt with, and it is no different for Trump. Pretending this is a minor social issue, does not make it so. Trump's DOJ has removed the Obama DOJ's objection to the stay on the issue of transgender access to bathrooms in schools. That signals a policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is widely considered a social issue,[20] which are not mutually exclusive with civil rights issue. There is already a section titled "Social issues" which summarizes the article Social policy of Donald Trump. That seems compliant with WP:Summary style, and it is already a lot more specific than the headers we use for his campaign political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Draft something if you wish, but I don't think there's enough notable content to warrant this. Most of the media reports are speculation, and like every issue he's back and forth about many/most details. It's mostly just buzz based on things he and his staff/friends have said; perhaps besides the school bathrooms issue, I don't find it significant enough. Also, this article is unwieldy enough; his Social Policy article should be sufficient. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - think not WP:DUE amount of his time spent on this area as he's more about immigration items and america first in the coverage. Also, remember this is his Biography page, and if you mean policy as President then it should be in the article Presidency of Donald Trump. Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support compromise: The treatment of his position on LGBT rights should be expanded to a full paragraph (of no more than three sentences). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Political positions should be trimmed from the biography and expanded in the relevant articles such as, for LGBT issues, Social policy of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: LGBT rights are a social issue, not domestic. Prcc27 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding something just because its socially trendy L3X1 (distant write) 13:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) - At the moment, Donald Trump has expressed views about LGBTQ rights, but that is all. At this early stage of the Trump presidency, the administration has not involved itself in any LGBTQ-specific policy or legislation. If that changes, a time may come when the article will need exactly what SW3 has proposed. And with the various ghastly "religious freedom restoration" proposals, this may happen sooner that one might imagine. Please see Barack Obama#Domestic policy for how a featured article handles the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you plan to add a voting rights section, and a women's rights section, and a whole lot of others. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scjessey. However, I support a section on LGBT rights within the presidency of Donald Trump article. Orser67 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Initial discussion Please see above at #LGBT rights section for initial comments made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As measured by total volume of (domestic or global) mainstream news reporting, US government officials' positions on LGBT rights is more significant and noteworthy than their positions on abortion rights, gun control, marijuana control, capital punishment, and waterboarding combined. Accordingly, information about an official's political position on LGBT rights is often significant and noteworthy enough for inclusion in his or her biography. In Trump's case, I would support a 2- or 3-sentence description of his position, given that his positions on other social topics merit a total of 5 sentences. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: agree with and would appreciate it if you would add "support," not 'support compromise,' As the paragraph is not written yet. This is an important, well-established civil rights issue that recent presidents have had to deal with, including Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, and Barack Obama. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: With respect to the removal of the objection (transgender bathroom use), while it is causes egregious and unnecessary pain to transgender children, it's not a significant move in the grand scheme of things, since it is only the removal of an objection in a case concerning a particular state. In essence, it is more about state's rights than an LGBTQ policy. Not enough to promote the concept to a section yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It should go wherever other civil-rights issues go. If the only existing section that would apply is "Domestic policy", then put it there. The information should not be omitted simply because there is no current section called "Civil rights issues". To me this is a no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment 2: The question of the RFC is "Should the Domestic Policy] section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights?" Where is the putative wording for the "LGBT rights" section? If someone creates such a cited subsection or paragraph, and posts it on this talk page, then I believe editors can accurately assess whether that proposed text, or something resembling it, should be in the article. Other than that, this RfC question is a little confusing because it seem to also be asking where a section on LGBT rights should be placed. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: mention of same-sex marriage, etc., is made in the domestic policy section. The RfC is attempting to establish if a sub-section title, LGBT rights, should be in the domestic policy section. The argument here seems to want to call it a social issue when clearly it is a civil rights issue. And there seems to be a desire to bury it there without allowing any attention to LGBT rights as civil rights, as there is, for example, on the Barack Obama page here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed early close

I closed this and the close has been challenged, both per WP:BRD. This begins the discussion phase, replacing the inappropriate and unnecessary complaint at WP:ANI.

• Support close for reasons stated in my close statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That the closure has been challenged by two other editors should be plenty enough to demonstrate that this was not the type of uncontroversial closure that is within the scope of an WP:NAC. And that alone pretty well ends the conversation right there. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

[21] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote?

Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President of the United States" will know whether they are on the right page or not. Siuenti (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is "of the United States" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President" will know whether they are on the right page or not. The answer is that both "incumbent" and "of the United States" are vital information to confirm who this BLP is about, even though all of those words could conceivably be removed if one were overzealous about being concise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You may know that no other Donald Trumps have been president of anything, but I don't think everyone else does. Siuenti (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguation page doesn't list anyone else who's been president of anything, AFAIK. Isn't the fact that this person is an incumbent "vital" information?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with including "incumbent president of the United States" for perfect clarity. Is there any valid reason NOT to include it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) See below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not that I can think of... I agree, keep it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE says "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking" and "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader" Siuenti (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A hatnote at Andrew Jackson might reasonably read, "This article is about the President of the United States. For other uses, see Andrew Jackson (disambiguation)." Thus "incumbent" is not superfluous here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So people who see "President of the United States" without "incumbent" are going to be wondering if they've got the wrong President Donald Trump of the USA? Siuenti (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. That does not mean that "incumbent" is superfluous, per my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word with the edit summary "no other President of the United States known as Donald Trump". The hatnote should be a tool to help readers navigate to what they actually want to read, but if they accidentally stumble upon this page they won't confuse with another Donald Trump who was POTUS so no need to have the unnecessary word. In a case like George Bush and his son/father I would accept the use of an explanatory word. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I restored it. You should not have removed it while it was under discussion. Since it is longstanding wording, the default is to keep it while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove – "Incumbent" is wholly unnecessary in the hatnote, just like "current" was determined by consensus to be wholly unnecessary in the lead sentence. — JFG ^talk 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I supported removal of "current" because of the use of "incumbent" in the hatnote. It's entirely standard to have one or the other.[22]. This is the primary distinguishing feature between Trump and all the other presidents of the U.S. If we want to make this into a long, drawn-out discussion, I suppose that another option would be to instead say that he is the president of the United States, and the 45th, but it's very awkward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have trouble following your reasoning here: are you saying that either the lead sentence or the hatnote should have some indication of "current" or "incumbent", because it's otherwise unclear? Think about it this way: we say Trump "is" the president of the United States; all others "were" presidents; present tense is plenty enough to frame him as the current president. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am saying that, and no we don't say that Trump "is the president of the United States". We say that he "is the 45th president of the United States", and that does not clearly indicate he's the incumbent. So having "incumbent" in the hat is harmless and useful. Incidentally, per MOS:BIO, "If a person is living but has retired, use 'is a former' or 'is a retired' rather than the past tense 'was'." So we shouldn't say Jimmy Carter was the president or even that he was the 39th president (note too that the living former presidents still have the title "president").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Was my preceding comment disruptive or in bad faith? It must have been since it was ignored completely. MelanieN was ignored completely. IP69 was ignored completely. Mandruss was ignored completely. Etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK revert if you wish and we'll continue the discussion. "incumbent" in the hatnote seems to have gone from "vital" to "harmless and useful". I'll remind you that WP:HATNOTE says "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader." Siuenti (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It was harmless, useful, and vital.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove and rephrase. "Titles such as president and king are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president." (MOS:JOBTITLES.)

A model DAB entry: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. president 1933–1945". (WP:DABNOT.)

"This article is about the incumbent President of the United States." No, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States. More concisely, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent U.S. president. Most concisely and formally, it's about Donald Trump, the U.S. president (or, alternatively, the American president).

But perhaps we ought to draw an overt parallel between Elizabeth II and Donald I, by going with the {{Other uses}} hatnote? ("Elizabeth II A featured article... For other uses, see...") Not: "Elizabeth II This article is about the incumbent Queen of the United Kingdom. For other uses see..." (or the like). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially when the other uses are so much less notable. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the entire hat note.- The lede sentence tells you this man is the sitting president of the United States. WP:COMMONSENSE. Not to mention, the disambig is not necessary. Everything there refers to Donald Trump. I don't see a need to sort out Donald Trump, Jr., since his article is clearly titled as such. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the unrelated Donald L Trump needs to be linked somehow. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove "incumbent" It's totally unnecessary to have that word there, doesn't add anything. We do need the hatnote though because someone looking for the oncologist, for instance, might not know the middle initial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the entire first sentence as unnecessary. To be useful, the hatnote need only read "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)". Thousands of articles follow that format. Station1 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The short form as in the Elizabeth II example is brilliantly concise and clear, and it seems to be used in many places; I'll apply this now. — JFG ^talk 18:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the entire first sentence. A simple {{other persons}} is sufficient. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The dab page has a lot more stuff than other persons, therefore I applied a simple {{Other uses}}, which seems to me the simplest and most elegant solution on hand. — JFG ^talk 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I agree a simple {{Other uses}} is just fine. Additional verbiage is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove other uses template alone is enough, anything else is superfluous with the current dab entries. Widefox; talk 10:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey about lead

The hatnote and lead paragraph:

For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.

• Support. This is fine. One-sentence paragraphs are bad form. That said, I also support keeping "incumbent" in the hatnote if the lead paragraph continues to omit that he is the current president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the vital information is where it belongs. Siuenti (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• SupportStatus quo Whatever is in the article seems just fine, per above... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Current consensus version of the lead sentence was debated at length and firmly established, see #Current consensus, item 11. No new developments warrant a change. — JFG ^talk 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support hatnote per WP:DABNOT. "The name only is sufficient in FDR (disambiguation) (for example, to distinguish the president from a flight data recorder)." Oppose lead paragraph for syntax (lack of parallel structure) and lack of conciseness. Better:

  For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization.

  Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS and the comment by Anythingyouwant we ought to minimize the number of single-sentence paragraphs. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Minimize and eliminate are not synonymous, and 1 is about as minimized as we can get. Very sparing use of single-sentence can be viewed as a good thing from a readability standpoint, not unlike the principle that mixing sentences of different length is a good thing. If there is any place for a single-sentence paragraph, it's the first paragraph in the article. I don't disagree with your entire !vote, necessarily, just that relatively minor point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't like that version because it doesn't make clear he is the president now. The 45th is what makes it ambiguous, I suggest putting it in brackets for clarity. This would also avoid it looking like one long link instead of two. Siuenti (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  We've been here before, at least twice. The verb "is" is present tense. We don't say that Barack Obama is the 44th president. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I do. He is still "President Obama" and he is still the 44th. Why you folks decline to insert a harmless word of clarification is beyond me, even if you (mistakenly) think it's unnecessary. As Dervorguila has shown (perhaps inadvertently), the custom at Wikipedia is to be clear about this (see Obama, GW Bush, QEII, etc.). And User:Mandruss already said above that, "'incumbent' is not superfluous here" regarding the hatnote, so I really don't understand how it could be non-superfluous in the hatnote but superfluous in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  The difference is that the hatnote does not (and cannot) contain the present-tense verb "is". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  MOS:BIO forbids us to use "the past tense 'was'" for any of the living former presidents. And anyway, User:Mandruss, each one of the living former presidents retains the title "president".[23] See also here: "In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either 'President Carter' or 'Mr. Carter.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Addressing Obama as "Mr. President" is a completely different thing from saying he "is" the 44th president. Anyway, see my !vote below, which rationale I believe outweighs any of this. We are quibbling about things that have precious little connection to reader value. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  User:Mandruss, According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". I could go on and on with further quotations like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  That's not what I mean by "really compelling new argument" in my !vote. Do you dispute that there are likely signifiicant problems with important things like neutrality and verifiability, in this and other articles, that are being neglected because so many editors are tied up in tunnel-vision debates about minutiae like a single word in a sentence that has a clear consensus? If you do, you're wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not telling readers he's the current president is a problem worth discussing. Unfortunately it seems we also have to discuss whether or not it's worth discussing. Siuenti (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately that is the case, since that's the vastly larger and more important issue. It's the entire point of having the consensus list in the first place, and those of us who have been around since its inception have witnessed its very real, tangible benefits firsthand. As far as I can tell, most of the regulars here appreciate those benefits. We understand that it's a trade-off, but we feel it's a good one. Editors at other articles are free to disagree at those articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's quite mind-boggling that anyone would think it's unimportant to say in the lead that he is the current POTUS. This article will never be a good article much less a featured article if it omits such critical information that has been presented in similar BLPs (GW Bush, B Obama, QEII). And there have always been ways to include this information that would have completely addressed the concerns of both sides, e.g. by saying he has been in office since January 2017. This intransigence and unwillingness to seek compromise is very worrisome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The question is whether to mention that in the hatnote and the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise? It's been in the hatnote for months. Now several editors want to completely delete from the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Trump is the current POTUS. Please see Not My Presidents Day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that the discussion is only to delete it from the hatnote. I used and, as in whether we should have it in both the hatnote and the lead or merely just the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia, I think you're mistaken. The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States." That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". So, the discussion is now about whether both the hatnote and the lead paragraph should exclude that Trump is currently in office as president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11. There is no consensus on the hatnote, and we haven't spend a huge amount of editor time discussing that. Make a proposal for a hatnote by itself, and my oppose will likely become a support. If that gains a clear consensus, it will be added to the list. Moral of the story: Smaller proposals make smaller targets and are therefore more likely to gain consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus 11 is subject to change like any other consensus. I am really surprised that you want to keep consensus 11 the way it is for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, and I do not believe that's how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote. That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, - That is not...even...close to an accurate statement of my position on consensus 11. I think I articulated it fairly thoroughly and clearly. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You said, "I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11." If I misunderstood that comment, so be it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Those 13 words were not intended to fully represent my other 240 words on the subject in this thread. Nor could they. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per JFG. New arrivals are encouraged to review the discussions that form the current consensus, helpfully linked at #Current consensus item 11. Alternatively, they can simply be impressed by the six (6) discussion links there, and imagine the amount of editor time that must have been consumed by those discussions. Unless someone has some really compelling new argument, we should leave well enough alone and spend our limited time on things that haven't already been discussed to death. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th, and current, President of the United States. with deletion of "He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States." The lede sentence tells the reader that, and doubtful anybody else is thought to be the current president at the moment. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Mandruss. What we have is fine. Time to get on with other things. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Anythingyouwant makes the point below that past presidents are referred to by their number, and in the present tense. This is because they will always be that number. So Anything wants to distinquish that, while Trump is and always will be the 45th, he is also right now, the current president. I've not read through all the walls of text to know if Anything previously articulated it that way, and I'm not going to. It's far easier to mention it here as a comment. So Anything is correct, we should mention that Trump is the current president. Past consensus failed to take that bit into account. Or maybe it did, but I've already stated my position on walls of text. And I would absolutely put this to an RfC if it comes down to it, because he's dead on right. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about survey

Several people have suggested removing "incumbent" from the hatnote, and several people have suggested keeping it there. So we are properly considering a compromise that would tweak the lead paragraph and remove "incumbent" from the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, why do you oppose saying in both the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Donald Trump is the incumbent or current president? Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States, and he still carries the title of president. As I read your proposed version, Donald Trump might be out of office just like Carter. It is very standard at Wikipedia to say that the current president is the current president.[24]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Compare with FA Elizabeth II: "For other uses, see Elizabeth II (disambiguation). Elizabeth II ... has been Queen of the United Kingdom ... and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of 12 countries..." Also with GA George W. Bush: "For other people named George Bush, see George Bush (disambiguation). George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States. He served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 until 2000..." And with FA Barack Obama: "...For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation). Barack Hussein Obama II ... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States. The first African American ... to serve as president, Obama is a member of the Democratic Party." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, if it was okay to say "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President" (emphasis added), and likewise for Obama, then why are you opposing any mention (either in the hatnote or the lead paragraph) that Trump is the current or incumbent president??? Your draft in green completely omits that Trump is the current or incumbent president, right???Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Nonetheless, I do think we could all live (however unhappily) with "Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th and current president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization."

So, yes, we could use "...and current..." But we don't need to. Wikipedia could say "She is ... the current queen of 12 countries..." But it chooses not to.

I'm willing to support either version. Let's just go with the consensus on this one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, the QEII lead paragraph very clearly indicates that she is currently the Queen: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952" (emphasis added). Yet you seem to be saying that it would be fine if we omit any such indication in the hatnote and lead paragraph of the Trump BLP that he is still in office as president. If the consensus is to leave this vital fact out of the hatnote and lead, then I'm not going to edit-war about it, but it seems exceedingly silly, IMHO. I am not insisting on the word "current" or the word "incumbent". It would be equally okay to say that Trump has been in office since January 2017. But to completely omit that he is now in office strikes me as odd and inappropriate, and completely different from all the examples you cite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I should emphasize that I can live with "... 45th and current president of the United States..." And this construction does eliminate the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem. But neither construction is inappropriate. And neither one is odd. (It may however seem that way if you've been working on the article too long!) ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The current sentence is actually badly constructed ("Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.") because the items in the list are different (indefinite and definite). Consider "X is an A,B, and the C"... does that seem right to you? One possibility would be "...television personality and politician serving as". Siuenti (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: You stated above, "Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote. That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead." But the lede sentence is in the present tense of the verb 'to be.' It says, "is" which makes him the current/incumbent president. We really only need a disambig line. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States." That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and they've said it about Ronald Reagan, too. You cannot use old sources to suggest these past-presidents are still president because a source uses what number they were. Wikipedia doesn't say they are presently president in their articles.It says he's the 45th. . SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Were the four sources that I just linked to published after Carter and Clinton left office? Why yes, they were. I grow weary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use incumbent, that's fine, but I'd support @Anythingyouwant: For grammar's sake, use this Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th, and current, President of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald

The Donald redirects here and not to /r/The_Donald, which in common speak is referred to as just The Donald. Should we mention this in the hatnote, redirect, or something else entirely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support redirecting The Donald to the reddit forum, which is probably primary topic for this expression in this day and age vs the 1990s. — JFG ^talk 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Universally acceptable text (?)

The comments above represent a classic consensus-building discussion, "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". The following text appears to more-or-less incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns:

For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States.

• Support. Not the most concise wording, perhaps. But it does follow the recommendations given in WP:ONESHORTHAT (generally, a hat should list no more than a disambiguation page); WP:HNS (omit hat summary if most English speakers know, e.g., that subject Donald Trump is the current US president); WP:SEAOFBLUE (avoid placing links next to each other); MOS:PARAGRAPHS (minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs); WP:BETTER (use one-sentence paragraphs sparingly); comparison articles FA Barack Obama (19 January 2017) ("...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..."; 2-sentence lead graf)), GA George W. Bush (19 January 2009), and FA Elizabeth II ("For other uses, see Elizabeth II (disambiguation)"; 2-sentence lead graf); and Chicago Manual of Style (parallel structure: modifiers). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, because it's almost the same as the version I proposed above, which said this in the second sentence: "He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States." I prefer "incumbent" to "current" because the latter sounds to me a lot like "for the time being", but I could live with "current". If no change to the lead paragraph is accepted, then I support keeping "incumbent" in the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because it doesn't begin to incorporate this editor's legitimate concerns. Perhaps you don't see my concerns as legitimate? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is grammatically correct and also accurate, as Anythingyouwant pointed out earlier. Donald Trump is and always will be the 45th president, and right now he is the current president. And that distinction needs to be there. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I now believe we should omit "This article is about..." wording in the hatnote. I originally supported keeping it but I see that it is not used in other articles about presidents, not even those where disambiguation is necessary like John Adams or George Bush. I think we have enough of a consensus here that I think we can go ahead and remove it.

I always preferred saying "current" president in the lede sentence, but we have discussed that many times here and I have been outvoted. Consensus was repeatedly to leave it out; see consensus #11 above. There is no way we can change that with a little add-on like this to another discussion. It would require a full RfC, and IMO we have had enough of those and should continue to leave it out as per previous consensus - and move on to more important matters. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to eliminate "current" and "incumbent" from both the hatnote and the lead paragraph. You do, User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I see about two-to-one in favor of reducing the hatnote to a simple "for other uses...". which I think is enough to implement that. I see enough disagreement about whether to put "incumbent" or "present" in the lede sentence that it might warrant one more formal RfC discussion, properly formatted and advertised. (I'm not saying we SHOULD do another RfC, just that we can't implement this change without one - due to the multiple previous discussions that gave us consensus #11. I would also say that if a new RfC comes up with the same result as the previous ones, we should put a moratorium on any further discussion of that subject.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: An RfC should be limited to the version above and the one in the article. That seems to be the current choice. But you don't appear to have ivoted yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Anythingyouwant: The George W. Bush (19 January 2009) GA article read: "...is the forty-third and current President of the United States. The Barack Obama (19 January 2017) FA article read: "...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..." Neither used the term "incumbent". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I know, but this BLP need not be verbatim the same as those BLPs. Anyway, I supported your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Consensus #11 notwithstanding, the current language may be corrected to accord with the "parallel structure" requirement given in Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 5.212. I trust you're not arguing that an RfC is required to correct an undisputed syntax error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that Wikipedia editing is governed by CMoS, you're seriously mistaken. Even if our MoS endorses that particular point, it's still a nit that doesn't outweigh the "consensus 11" arguments, and our MoS is not the last word, ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Which of your most important concerns does it not address? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: See my Oppose at #Survey about lead and my comments in the threaded discussion just above that, beginning at 08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC). As far as I can tell, JFG, MelanieN, and SusanLesch basically concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Is your most important concern that "we should leave well enough alone and spend our limited time on things that haven't already been discussed to death"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Yes. I guess you could say that's my only concern. But it's larger than this immediate question; it's about the role of the consensus list, and maybe we need a consensus about that. For now, however, we have to re-debate that over and over again, and I think JFG, MelanieN, and possibly Scjessey have been with me fairly consistently, to wit:
We don't have the time to address everything, so we have to set priorities and let some of the smaller things slide. We need to say that the six discussions on the first sentence are enough, until that sentence becomes patently false. If we discover that his birthdate is stated incorrectly, we can speedily amend consensus 11. If the United States changes its name to Divided States during his presidency, we can fix that. But we don't wish to repeatedly resurrect first-sentence debates about whether it should say "politician", whether people really need to be told that he is currently in office despite constant news coverage about him from virtually every news outlet on the planet, and so on. This line of thinking originated in the interminable debates about the infobox photo, and many of us said: "Enough. Not worth this much time. Stop. WP:IAR trumps WP:CCC in this case." That thinking has persisted. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: WP:IAR recommends, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:CCC doesn't appear to prevent us from improving this article. And check out the TRUMP project page, where Objective #4 calls for "correcting every grammatical error (big or small)" in this and related articles. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have stated my reasoning and I am unconvinced by yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dervorguilla. In fact, at this point, consensus has changed. I've previously supported not using 'current' based on the logic that the verb form "To be" in present tense was 'is,' and that should be enough. But now I see the distinction because previously nobody mentioned that the same verb is used for past-presidents because they are numbered. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Many thanks for the reminder. "I always preferred saying 'current' president in the lede sentence, but we have discussed that many times here and I have been outvoted." Yes, and perhaps it may be time to apply WP:CCC policy. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments." It does appear that no one had considered the argument about the syntax error. Also, "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion"; only if "talk page discussions fail" is an RfC required. And this particular talk page discussion actually seems near to achieving a reasonable compromise consensus on (at least) two proposed changes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Dervorguilla and MelanieN: This will correct an omission that Anythingyouwant seems to be the only one to have pointed out. I'm not going to go back over all the previous discussion because obviously it did not solve the problem of this omission. I think this is a simple fix, and should not be meeting any obstruction, really. This is for the benefit of the article, and I guarantee you that if we were to get this article anywhere near GA, without the proposed language, a reviewer would point this out and want it there. We are a long way from GA as it is, might as well get started with the first sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• There are lots of valid opinions and arguments in this discussion; however it has been somewhat muddled by mixing proposed changes to the hatnote and proposed changes to the lead sentence. My current reading of the discussion is that we have rough consensus to keep the shortest hatnote {{Other uses}}, so I would ask the reverting editor Anythingyouwant for permission to switch back to this short version, which I had implemented two days ago. Then we can continue discussing the lead sentence: there is no clear consensus yet, and given the history of controversy about this very sentence, I believe that any consensus change should be cemented by a formal RfC, otherwise it will be repeatedly contested, and waste productive editor time. Accordingly, I am not yet voicing an opinion on the latest proposal by Dervorguilla. — JFG ^talk 12:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue of whether to remove from the hatnote that he's the current president is closely intertwined with the issue of whether to insert that same information into the lead paragraph. Trying to discern separate consensuses is unnecessary, difficult, and unwise. I'd be glad to have an RFC that resolves this whole matter all at once. It seems uncommonly silly to turn this BLP into an advertisement for the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements, while turning our list of 1RR exemptions into a list of consensuses that can never change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: a list of consensuses that can never change Again, that's an unconstructive, grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of the position, incorrect on at least two points (I think the correct term is "straw man"). I credit you with having the competence to figure this out if you wish to. Fair debating means expending the effort to really understand your opponents' well-articulated positions (communication requires effort on both ends, and I think I've done my part). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent anything, because it doesn't say anyone said anything. Obviously, no one but me has mentioned here the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements. Relax, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: As far as I can see, nobody is "turning this BLP into an advertisement for the Not My President movement"… What on Earth makes you think that? Simplifying a bludgeoned hatnote has no impact on readers understanding that Donald Trump is the current US President. Let's come to our senses here, please. — JFG ^talk 07:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, by omitting from the hatnote and lead that he is the president, we (perhaps inadvertently) cater to that movement, even if we mention lower in the article or in the infobox that he's the president. That may well be entirely coincidental, but even so it is very bad editing on our part (and perhaps I am not hallucinating).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, you are not hallucinating but perhaps ThatGirlTayler is… Her user page says she's a pessimist. No offense meant, Tayler! Actually, could you tell us whether having the hatnote simply say "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)" would make you doubt whether he is the current president? — JFG ^talk 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make between being a pessimist and hallucinating, and saying "no offense meant, Tayler" doesn't make it any less offensive. I suggest not taking out your feelings of inferiority out on others and see a therapist instead. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the diagnosis, that'll teach me! Now, what about telling us your opinion on the hatnote text? — JFG ^talk 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your question at 07:39, 28 March 2017, User:JFG, if you make the hatnote say that, or make it say Hillary Clinton is the real president, or make it say that JFG is president, none of that would make me doubt that Trump is president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, I wouldn't mix the two in an RfC if one solves the other. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is consensus for this change. We've done changes with three editors agreeing and I can find those diffs. It's obvious that this change needs to be made, it's nothing more than a grammar fix. MelanieN has not ivoted and she previously supported 'current.' Before, the argument was all about present tense and it being obvious that Trump was the current president. But Anythingyouwant has pointed out something we all overlooked. Trump is the 45th president and always will be 45, but right now he's also the 'current' president. Therefore, the argument against clarifying this seems childish. "I don't want to ivote because this sentence has had too many changes."??? That makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear SW3 5DL, please read what I wrote carefully and avoid disparaging the arguments of your fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear @JFG:, I did read your note. One goes with the other, as Anythingyouwant mentions in his note above. I also noted this curious exchange and your appearance here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: this curious exchange I'm really reaching the limit of my patience with your repeated AGF failures and subtle aspersions on this page. If you are accusing someone of something improper, please go to WP:ANI and say who and what. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Not at all. You might try not reading between the lines. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: What was "curious" about that exchange, and what was the point of mentioning it in this discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Punctuate or wikify 45th - to (45th) or 45th

At the moment in the lead sentence 45th is right next to President of the USA, this results in consecutive blue links, which look like just one link. I would like to try fix this either by putting 45th in brackets (45th) or by de-linking the "th", so it looks like 45th Siuenti (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Best practice is to not use brackets and to not link only part of a word. Also, the SEAOFBLUE problem goes away if we change the phrasing to "45th and current president of the United States". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments (RFC) about whether the lead paragraph should say he's the current president

Assuming that the hatnote is edited to remove that he is the current ("incumbent") president, should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The RFC question is not proposing any particular language, and is flexible regarding "current" vs. "incumbent" vs. "serving since", etc. You may indicate which specific language you prefer, but any language indicating that Trump is now president constitutes support for this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey about saying he's the current president

• Support as proposer. This is a sensitive subject, in view of the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements. If the lead paragraph merely says that he is the 45th president, that does not indicate he is the current president. After all, reliable sources say that Jimmy Carter is still the 39th president, and Bill Clinton is still the 42nd president. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". It's true that our talk page includes a list of current consensuses, but that list is merely for exempting people from 1RR, not for making it more difficult to change any consensus. The list of consensuses includes the lead sentence, but removal of incumbency from the hatnote changes the context of the lead sentence, to such an extent that I think a slight modification of the lead sentence is very much justified. This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ("current" vs. "incumbent" vs. "serving since", etc.). Also see the archived good article George W. Bush: "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States." See also the featured article Barack Obama: ""is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Defining characteristic. Current, incumbent, serving all good... or put brackets round (45th). Siuenti (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and superfluous. "Is" is a present tense verb, regardless of how some sources choose to use it (I don't think WP:V applies to grammar). The notion that this is needed because of a "not my president" controversy approaches the absurd, and I use that word very sparingly in discussion. And the first sentence has already received massive discussion, linked at #Current consensus item 11. It's time to call it "good enough", leave it alone, and move on to other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It seems to me that it's common practice on Wikipedia, and a good one, to identify officeholders as "current" during their term of office. This is how previous presidents were described when they served, and it provides clarity. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Common practice on Wikipedia often violates the Manual of Style. MOS:CURRENT frowns on the use of time-sensitive words like "current". Yes I realize this page is updated, but saying "Trump is President" is clear that he's incumbent. Obama's page doesn't say "Obama is President" any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, but it said "current" when he was president. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE should not be our guiding light here. — JFG ^talk 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral The real problem is the current wording of the full sentence in the lede. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, and the 45th President of the United States. It's simply too long and omits the most important information right up front and that is, Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States. This RfC will not solve that. It is ONLY suggesting that Trump's presidency be in the present tense. It DOES NOT support using the word "CURRENT.' See this RfC for another here which solves this problem. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss and Muboshgu.- MrX 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as we can remove the word 'after' Trump leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per my comment below and plain good sense.--John Cline (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Most such articles, including articles about presidents, have put "current" in the lede sentence, as noted above by Anythingyouwant and DavidK93. I don't like "serving as" because it seems like a kind of attempt to distance ourselves from saying (admitting?) that he IS the president - as opposed to just "serving as" the president.--MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support 100% that it needs to say Donald J. Trump is the current President of the United States of America in one way or another simply because...well, he is!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support it's what we've done with Bush and Obama and should be done with Trump. He will always be "is the 45th President" but now he is the current President. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per analogous FA Barack Obama (19 January 2017) ("...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..."); WP:CCC policy; and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support – My preferred formulation would be Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. — JFG ^talk 07:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about saying he's the current president

• Comment. Possible redundancy here. The infobox already says "incumbent", so it isn't exactly necessary that it be included anywhere else. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Muboshgu, not only is this page frequently updated (as you say), but also the RFC question allows "since 2017" which is a formulation explicitly favored by WP:Current. As I already said, this RFC is not about how it should be phrased. If we said "Trump is president" then that would take care of the problem, but we don't say that, do we?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support adding "serving since 2017" to the end of the first sentence of the lead as a way of demonstrating that he is the incumbent. My point is to not use the word "current". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion would be fine with me. I think you ought to change your !vote from "oppose" to "support", and say why. This RFC is not about how to phrase this stuff. The RFC question is "should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?" (emphasis added). I explained this in my !vote: "This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ('current' vs. 'incumbent' vs. 'serving since', etc.)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment could you change the word "say" to "clarify" in the proposal so it's clear the specific wording is flexible? Siuenti (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. @Anythingyouwant: I beg to differ. This RfC is about using the word current. You cannot bait and switch here. Your RfC is now set and you cannot change it. Editors have ivoted based on your original RfC comment. To tell another editor that you are flexible in changing the language is disruptive. Especially as the prior discussion is all about using "the 45th and current president. . ." This is what the prior discussion is about. That's what my ivote is supporting. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not change the RFC question one iota. The only thing in quotes in the RFC question is the word "incumbent" which is given this way as an example of what is meant by the word current: "current ('incumbent')". Feel free to change your !vote if you want. If I say "Mary said that she doesn't want to ride in the car" that obviously does not preclude that Mary said, "I would prefer to not ride in the automobile".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment#NotMyPresident. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - is serving as the 45th President of the United States of America since 2017 is an unambiguous neutral introduction of fact. While it can be said that Obama is the 44th president, it can not be said that he is serving in that capacity. Only one can serve and it is a distinction due this man since January 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs)

That would be fine, User:John Cline. Why not support the RFC proposal which allows this language you've proposed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I do support the proposal, and have made this more clear above.--John Cline (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Cline: If you want that specific language you need to mention that in your ivote. Please read the notes above under the RfC question. The OP's question is misleading. He wants the word, 'incumbent.' He's never going to say, "serving as." If you want that choice, this is not that RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. I have said repeatedly that I will be glad with any language indicating Trump is now in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no justification to assume bad faith of the OP. I believe the RFC is to determine if Donald Trump should be mentioned in the present tense without prescribing the exact prose that will be used if the RFC gains consensus. It is not a question of what "he's never going to say", but what we will collaborate to say if such mention is preferred. I appreciate you mentioning your concern, though I believe it is misplaced.--John Cline (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Cline: The previous discussions never mentioned using loose language in an RfC, but rather, the discussion had narrowed it down to, "is the 45th, and current, president." That was the language that had the most support when the OP made this RfC without previous discussion of what his RfC would say. The whole point of an RfC, and our previous discussions, was to settle on 'specific' language. This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started. I noticed you seemed to like "serving as," and I think that's a good idea, too. That's why I put the note at the top of the article so that editors will be able to voice their choice. The OP is going to have his choice, the rest of us should as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

John Cline is entirely correct. In contrast, it is incorrect to say "This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started." If the RFC wins enough support then we are emphatically not back where we started, because a successful RFC will rule out having a hatnote and lead that both omit the fact that the President of the United States is Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You should have used the specific language that editors in the previous discussion worked so hard to narrow down. You supported and participated, but you failed to discuss the RfC and the language BEFORE you went ahead. This is NOT at all what was discussed previously, and certainly this not the wording at all. The WHOLE POINT was to narrow down the sentence, to be SPECIFIC, so there would not be problems down the line. This is a mess, and this language in this RfC was never even remotely discussed as a possibility. That's just wrong. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - See this RfC for specific choices on the precise language here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It would be better to use the reply function and put your comments here and not under ivotes. Editors are coming here to give their comment/opinion. Use the discussion section for your comments about their ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: "is the President" is clear but "is the 45th President" is not, because he will continue to be the 45th President forever. Siuenti (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment use whatever we used for Bush and Obama. It's as simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, that would be fine with me, and that's why I supported this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: This RfC is not for chosing specific words. Bush and Obama used, "is the current president." You can make that choice at this RfC here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Donald Trump is not a waiter. ". . .serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017." Sounds more like a diner advert, "Serving New Yorkers since 2017." Lol. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Current

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Current says

the term "current" should be avoided. What is current today may not be tomorrow; situations change over time. Instead, use date- and time-specific text. To help keep information updated use the {{as of}} template.

Incorrect: He is the current ambassador to ... Correct: As of March 2011, he is the ambassador to ...

Just FYI Siuenti (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing the MOS says is

The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007".

Siuenti (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the actual BLP said while she was in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another MOS section

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Statements likely to become outdated (emphasis added):

“ Except on pages updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969. For current and future events, use phrases like as of March 2017 or since the beginning of 2017 to signal the time-dependence of the information. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How would you feel about "became the 45th President in January 2017"? Siuenti (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, that's ambiguous about whether he remains president. Let's see how the RFC goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

January 20 in lead please

Can we put January 20 somewhere in the lead please? For example, "He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency" could become "On January 20 he became..." Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It should definitely be somewhere in the BLP, but I think putting it in the body of the article is sufficient. We already say in the lead when he was elected, and most people will assume (correctly) that he took office soon thereafter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC to determine specific language for the lede sentence regarding Donald Trump as president

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.

---

• Note: This RfC question has changed due to input from other editors.

This is now the only question for this RfC:

• Right now, the lede sentence says, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."
• Should the lede sentence instead say,

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States.

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The sentence in the article right now, is simply too long and omits the one important element that he is the current president. Given the early comments, and because there were no ivotes other than mine, I've changed the question of this RfC and propose this one simple sentence for the lede. It also follows the convention used in Barack Obama's article here, as well as George W. Bush here. Of all the titles ascribed to Donald Trump, the most important, the most relevant, the most immediate, is that he is the current president. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a confusing mess. I lost track of what RfC I was replying to and I hadn't noticed that this one is now proposing to leave out the "long winded list" of other things he is - a list which was strongly debated in previous discussions, and which I think should remain as the product of hard-won consensus. I strongly oppose this proposal, both because it ignores or overturns previous consensus and becaues it leaves out everything he has done or been known for in the first 70 years of his life. And this RfC should probably be aborted as hopelessly entangled with the other current RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort this RfC. Not only does it overlap an existing RfC, but RfCs are a form of dispute resolution only necessary when regular talk page discussion has broken down. Why are editors on this talk page so eager to start RfCs? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort, again – OP reacted to remarks that an RfC with many choices was bound to fail; great. However now the RfC offers only one choice, which happens to be OP's preferred wording, with absolutely no prior discussion among "local" editors about why this wording should be submitted to the wider community. This won't work either, and said wider community will get tired of answering ill-prepared questions. RfCs are not a magic wand to set up the debate exactly the way you want it framed. — JFG ^talk 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. The two wordings provided are essentially identical but the current one "reads" slightly better. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please remember to post your questions to other editors here using the reply function and not post under their ivote, to avoid disrupting the Survey. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort. How in the world can anyone make sense out of this RfC? Is this "discussion" section supposed to be about the reworded question? Is the discussion section below about the previous choices here, which are now nowhere to be seen, or is it about the other concurrent RfC? What are we even supposed to be responding to? This is a hopeless mess. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: And the real problem is that the sentence in the article right now omits the most important fact about Donald Trump and that is he IS the 45th and current president. The old consensus is gone. That is why there are so many discussion threads about the lede sentence. It is the mess. Too much verbiage. This RfC seeks to solve that. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: That RfC will only compound the problem. This RfC seeks to eliminate the problem. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Abort. The previous question is still the one transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies etc so the discussion isn't as advertised. Siuenti (talk)

It seems fine now. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, the first sentence does not include "is the current president." It also does not follow the usual convention on wikipedia which is to start off with the most important fact that this person is currently the president of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No, SW3, that is NOT the usual convention. In fact we've never done it that way. The previous articles about current presidents said "is an American politician and (or "who is") the XXth and current president of the United States". That's because "politician" was their defining description; in the case of Reagan and Eisenhower, who had another earlier defining job, it says "an American politician and actor who was the 40th president of the United States" and "an American politician and Army general who served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961." That's the case with Trump; his "definition" includes businessperson, television personality, and politician, as the result of long discussion about what positions to include. This is Wikipedia 101: the purpose of the lede sentence is to define what the subject IS: a musician, an artist, a baseball player, a physicist. The particular position they hold at the moment is not what they ARE. So our convention is to define who they are, and THEN add their current important position: "Rex Wayne Tillerson (born March 23, 1952) is an American energy executive, civil engineer, and diplomat who is the 69th and current United States Secretary of State." "Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is an American businessman and politician who has been the 45th Governor of Florida since 2011." "John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is an American politician who currently serves as the senior United States Senator from Arizona." --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: And I would have just said, politician, because even Trump says he's one now. That means, in the now, right now. He's not a businessman anymore. He's a politician and the 45th and current president of the United States and the sentence should say that. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so now you want to say "is a politician and the president"? Up to now you have been arguing, and this RfC proposes, to eliminate all the job titles and say only "is the president". Yet another reason why this RfC needs to be aborted. Even you, the proposer, can't decide what you are proposing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If a unanimous-minus-one abort vote among this page's regulars (the one being the OP) can't produce either a SNOW close or a withdrawal, I don't know what would. Sigh. It's unfortunate that the OP is unable to defer to such an overwhelming opinion. Since there are no remaining uninvolved regulars, maybe somebody should post at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you want to go to AN, by all means. But they will see I am trying to sort this. You're not. See the winged device headed your way. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: The clear overwhelming opinion is that this is beyond sorting, and you seem to be blind to that fact. I'm not impressed by your boomerang threat, nor worried. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you believe that is needed, go post there. This is a 'discussion' section where things do get sorted. I won't respond again, unless you've got a sentence suggestion. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm simply taking into account your comment and making suggestions. Please respond to the suggestions. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: What about this as it separates the sentences so there's no long-winded element:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States.

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I like this version (I am also OK with the other very similar versions: "is" and "who is"). In fact I believe this two-sentence version was in the article at one time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: There's also this suggestion, but I think it makes Trump sound like a waiter serving fries in the Oval office:

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017.

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3, another version now? Please voluntarily shut down this RfC. Do it now. Withdraw the RfC designation. It is no longer an RfC (if it ever was). It has become a general discussion, with multiple versions proposed (including several by you), and there is no way for people to respond to it in a normal support-oppose way, or even to keep up with all the added new versions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Go with the flow here and offer comments. I will deal with the RfC, but right now I'd like some input here before doing so. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: Or, this:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: btw, NONE of these sentences were crafted by me. I've taken them from this page written by Dervorguilla, JFG, and someone else, forgot. NOT me. Thanks for that AGF, admin Melanie. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Previous question discussion

• Note: From the comments and the suggestion to abort, and since I am the only one who ivoted, and the bot notices have not gone out, I amended the RfC. The problem seems to be with the long winded list of things Trump is, omits the one thing is really is right now, and that is the current president. Since another RfC is trying to determine if we should call him the current president, and it has enormous early support, then we should just straight out say it. Obama's page did. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• I prefer leaving the hatnote and lead as they are now and have been for months. But if the hatnote is edited so that it no longer says he is the current president, then all of these four options would be acceptable. I like option 3 best, but the others would be fine too. Also, I would get rid of the commas in all four options.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1. This is the style used on Wikipedia, including G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. It is concise and says it best. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 5, per MOS:COMMA (don't use unneeded commas), WP:SEAOFBLUE, and the several analogous articles cited above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – An RfC with multiple choices is doomed to produce no consensus. I'm sure several editors (me included) would like to propose yet another slightly different version. This cannot work. Better have an informal discussion to weed out the best choices, and if no consensus is achieved in there, go to RfC with a binary choice among two previously-discussed versions. There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - None of the options uses English-language syntax (which requires parallel construction). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort because so many options will probably result in no consensus for any one of them, in which case we might get stuck with a hatnote and lead that nowhere mention that trump is the president. We will need to discuss and figure out what the top two options are, and then maybe do an RFC if it's really necessary at that point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort train wreck. SW3 5DL, I see abort opinions from Scjessey, MelanieN, Siuenti (albeit with a poor rationale, since the bot will eventually update the listings), JFG, Dervorguilla, Anythingyouwant, and myself. Your best move at this point is to withdraw this RfC before any more time is wasted in it. Maybe you can guess why I'm not just SNOW aborting it myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In terms of getting consensus, looking for the option with least opposition might be better than looking for the one with most support. Siuenti (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: How do you mean? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• These four options all fail on one point, they each relegate Trump's presidency to the forth position of a serial list instead of culminating precursors into who Donald Trump most certainly is. The options read as if the ellipsis transitions with is when it actually transitions with and. Therefore, the RFC can only achieve saying some thing in effect; that: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States instead of: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, and politician who is the 45th and current President of the United States just as what was properly written of Barack Obama, saying: ... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States. I can not support any verbiage in the Donald Trump lead that places his presidency within a serial list.--John Cline (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Again an RfC with many choices is doomed to fail from the start. @SW3 5DL:, assuming you're the OP (it's unsigned), haven't you learned this from prior attempts? (especially seeing you say earlier An RfC should be limited to the version above and the one in the article.)— JFG ^talk 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Would you have any concerns about this phrasing? "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States." --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's you? Anyway, I was willing to go along with that "current" phraseology, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Statements_likely_to_become_outdated does seem to indicate it might not be the best way, because "current" kind of connotes "for the time being". But maybe it's our best choice notwithstanding the MOS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We must say that he is president. And he is, in normal sense, the current president. There is nothing wrong with it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, and the first sentence in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Statements likely to become outdated says: "except on pages updated regularly", this page will update regularly so is not discouraged at all by our MOS.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• "...is..." seems to have it covered, to me. "Is" implies "currently." To make it truly comparable to the ex-presidents' articles, you'd have to say, "and is currently serving as the 45th President..." That's even longer than option 4. There's no need to make it that complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM2KX (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not correct. The earlier presidential articles did not say "serving as". They said "Barack Obama is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." [25] --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Doesn't Option 1 already say, 'Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States.' Just without the commas? So you're saying, that without the commas, it's correct syntax? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the first place, setting the disputed phrase off with commas is incorrect. It should say "...the 45th and current president" (no commas) as has been done with presidential articles before this. (I am baffled why there is so much resistance to doing this the exact same way we did it for the previous two presidents.) In the second place, you are describing the opening sentence incorrectly; as John Cline pointed out, it does not say "is the 45th...", it says "and the 45th..." Until all the RfCs started we were doing this in several ways: one-sentence or two-sentence. They differed only slightly. There were two one-sentence versions: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." or "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician who is the 45th and current President of the United States." The two-sentence version was "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States."

As for my own preference, I definitely think we SHOULD include some way of indicating he is the current president. My first choice is something using "current". My second choice is "incumbent". I don't like "serving as" for reasons I explained above; it suggests we can't quite bring ourselves to admit that he IS the president. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Yes, the syntax is correct. But "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States" ≠ "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States". 17 words ≠ 24 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2017 (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.

IPA?

If no-one objects, I'd like to add the IPA pronunciation (US: /ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) to the lead. This is helpful for readers without a full grasp of English and appears to be the standard – see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. AFAIK this is a MOS requirement for FA/GA anyway. Cheers, Laurdecl ^talk 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You ought to read through the prior discussion. Also, here's an audio file.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I did not realise there had been a discussion. However, it was a fair while ago and before he became a household name. It's true that pronunciation is fairly simple, but then so is "Hillary Clinton", though there is an IPA in her article. I feel like it would be beneficial for foreign readers. Laurdecl ^talk 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Rodham isn't quite so straightforward as Hillary or Clinton. Anyway, please brace yourself, because I am now pinging User:Dervorguilla. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose these are all common English words/name. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Pronunciation if not technically the letter. I wouldn't mind if you put the IPA somewhere outside the lede. Siuenti (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of IPA being added to any article where there's even the tiniest bit of doubt about pronunciation. I know accents can (and do) alter the pronunciation of "Donald", but I'm not aware of any alternative pronunciations of "Trump". I don't see where the harm is in adding it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The harm is that it inserts something which is both unnecessary and incomprehensible to the majority of readers between the topic of the article and the most vital information about that topic. Siuenti (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Could it not help foreign readers who don't have a great grasp of English? I could imagine this happening with such a popular article. It's not overly distracting and seems to work fine in Clinton's and Obama's article. Also, this isn't an RfC. Laurdecl ^talk 12:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite superfluous in this case; both hist first name and his surname are extremely common words, and IPA would arguably break the flow of the lead sentence. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes it could help foreign readers, however the lead sentence is not a good place for distracting things, even if not "overly" distracting. The pronunciation of "Rodham" and "Obama" are not obvious so IPA is a good thing for those articles. Are there featured articles which provide IPA for common names? Do you object to putting the pronunciation in, say, a footnote? Siuenti (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that for, e.g. "Angela Merkel", whose name is surely mispronounced by many English-speaking readers, so... SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should? Laurdecl ^talk 13:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Angela Merkel's name is mispronounced by just about everyone. "Angela" should be pronounced AHN-GAY-LUH, but it is usually pronounced AHN-GUH-LUH or (worse) AN-JELL-UH. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Angela_Merkel#Pronunciation Siuenti (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your arguments against are flawed. IPA is very common in BLPs, and since it would appear within the parentheses of that lede sentence (where it always does) I don't think it is distracting at all. The "incomprehensibility" argument is absurd - we shouldn't "dumb down" Wikipedia for those who don't understand an internationally-recognized pronunciation system. And as I indicated earlier, I've heard "Donald" spoken as differently. Specifically, I've heard "DOH-NULD" and "DOO-NAHLD" from non English speakers, which are both wrong. I'm not saying we must include IPA, but I am saying there is no harm in doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a footnote be more distracting? I can't see any harm in including the IPA and if it benefits readers – even a small number – IMO it is a good idea. Laurdecl ^talk 13:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: The IPA works best on multi-syllable words, like Barack Obama. As Scjessey pointed out, Donald, which is just 2 syllables, could be mispronounced, but Trump can only be said one way in any language. And while I'm sure we're all sensitive to the difficulties of non-English speakers, it seems the editors here don't want to include it at this time, including me. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN says to "include pronunciation only for the words that need it" (illustration: Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley), not for common English words (like john and trump) or a word whose pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling".

Donald is nearly as common a name as Thomas -- and its pronunciation is surpassingly more apparent from its spelling. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. I've heard a lot of different pronunciation, especially from Americans and their irritating accents (no offence). It varies from DOHN-ALD to DAHN-OLD to DUH-NULD. I can't really see the harm in including it. Laurdecl ^talk 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, this fact actually detracts from adding an "official" IPA pronunciation. People from different countries and regions have various accents and will pronounce Donald pretty much as they please, and that's absolutely fine. — JFG ^talk 05:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

These are common English words/names, and so I would oppose including IPA here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 05:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: We're not going to be adding a pronunciation.

1. Because clutter.

2. Because WP:PRON says "consider that Wikipedia is not a dictionary when thinking of adding a pronunciation to an article".

3. Because "Donald McKinley Glover (/ˈɡlʌvər/)", "Donald Ervin Knuth (/kəˈnuːθ/)", "Donald Henry Pleasence (/ˈplɛzəns/)", et al.

4. Because of the fallacy of appeals to false authority. "False authority occurs chiefly when writers offer themselves ... as sufficient warrant for believing a claim." (Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you say so then there's nothing I can do. I will try to not present a viewpoint in any discussion in future, lest I be seen as appealing to myself. I wasn't aware we were having an "argument", I prefer to think of exchanging views as a discussion. As for fallacies, nice strawman with 4 and 2, since I'm not advocating adding this to every article; and a nice red herring with 1, since you don't seem to realise how common IPA is. Laurdecl ^talk 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also--

5. Because you've yet to cite an article beginning in "Donald" where the editors appear to have believed that they needed to give its pronunciation.

6. Because I've been offered no authoritative evidence or logical argument for believing that some nondyslexic English-speaking Americans say "DAHN-OLD TRUMP". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) 06:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote is based on what I've heard. You haven't cited any articles that say "Donald is nearly as common a name as Thomas" nor that the pronunciation of Trump is "apparent from its spelling". This isn't going anywhere – I believe that the IPA could help some readers and should be included, but if I'm outnumbered that's fine. Just a proposal, not an argument. I enjoyed the dyslexic jab though. Laurdecl ^talk 06:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I must remind editors the English language Wikipedia is for all speakers of English, not just Americans (who arguably don't speak English anyway). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I resemble that remark. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Universities in infobox

I see that the alma mater parameter in the infobox is constantly being changed, either to include Fordham, or to include what kind of degree Trump has, or to include or not Wharton & simply say University of Pennsylvania. I know this is probably not very important, but shouldn't we have a consensus on a definitive version to avoid it being changed all the time? Maybe opening an RfC would be a good idea? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A clear consensus would go a long way toward stabilizing that field, and I agree it would be worthwhile. But an attempt should be made to get there in normal discussion before starting an RfC. I propose doing that right here, but I'll hold off !voting since (1) I'm not aware of any community-level discussion on this, and (2) I don't have a strong opinion. As you say, there are several questions complicating the issue: Should it show Fordham? Should it say UPenn, Wharton, or both (Wharton is the college at UPenn)? Should it show the BS degree from Wharton in parentheses? I suppose we would have to !vote each question separately and then assemble a composite consensus from the results. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could have separate discussions on including BS degree, which schools, etc., or we could present options like "Fordham + UPenn", "Fordham + Wharton", "Wharton + BS in parantheses", etc. But doing separate questions and assembling a composite consensus seems like a better idea. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll go ahead and set that up in separate subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The University of Pennsylvania is made up of individual schools. It is correct to say, The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, since this is where he attended, and graduated from. There is no general admissions. There is only admissions to each individual school. He applied directly to Wharton and was accepted there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Show Fordham?

As Fordham University. !Vote Yes or No.

• Yes Mandruss makes a good point about the definition.SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but only if we mention in parentheses that he transferred out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  That will likely be read as a No, since that is excessive detail for this infobox field. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Would mentioning Fordham at all be excessive since he transferred out? He didn't graduate from there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @SW3 5DL: - {{Infobox officeholder}} gives no guidance on that. Merriam-Webster alma mater says: "a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated". According to them, then, Fordham could be included. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, and that's what this subsection will, with any luck, decide. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes per dictionary definition of alma mater. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: You don't think it will be a bit crowded there? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  (shrug) Yes + (Both or Combined) would be a large field value, sure. I'll switch to No if the No trend continues. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I changed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• No – We are not writing Trump's CV in the infobox; the last school attended and graduated is enough. Details belong in the prose. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. He didn't graduate. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Don't care. But, if it is included, then Wharton should include (B.S.) or (B.S. in Econ). Objective3000 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Show UPenn, Wharton, both, or combined as one link?

Wharton is the school at UPenn where Trump received his BS degree. !Vote:

• UPenn - University of Pennsylvania
• Wharton - The Wharton School
• Both - University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School)
• Combined - Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

--

• Wharton. But at the moment, the info box seems to have the correct format. It mentions both. So if that is a choice, I'd keep it as is. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  That will be read as a Both, not a Wharton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But if most just want Wharton, I'm fine with that, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wharton. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Wharton. People that care will know what Wharton is. Objective3000 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @SW3 5DL, Emir of Wikipedia, and Objective3000: Please re-check your !votes after revision of options. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both – And I don't think "The" is necessary. Just "University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School)" — JFG ^talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's a tie, i would also support Wharton only. — JFG ^talk 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Combined. Use the format decided upon by the authors of the Wikipedia article. Don't make stuff up. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Wharton Wharton is well known as one of the foremost business schools. TFD (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Show BS in parentheses?

As (BS). !Vote Yes or No. Although this is sometimes made "small", this would not be done here per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph (this is an accessibility issue).

• Yes, regardless of if we choose to mention that it was in economics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - per Emir of Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• No – Exact degree reached is only interesting for academic people. Again, details belong in the prose. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't think most people know Wharton has undergrad degrees. And if Fordham is also mentioned, the assumption would be a grad degree. Prefer (B.S. in Econ) as the college makes a point of including this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Thank you for considering accessibility. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They too serve who wait tables

Does saying someone has served as President of the United States make them sound like a waiter serving pizza? If so, it's a widespread problem, e.g. Richard Nixon, James Garfield, Gerald Ford, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama... all the POTUSes (POTI?) I looked at. Siuenti (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually Donald Trump too, just not in the lead... "Obama's... eligibility to serve as President." Siuenti (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Let the dictionary be your guide. I'm less concerned with what something might sound like to some readers than what is correct English. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Self service", more like. It is meaningless jargon used by the rich and powerful to make themselves feel even more superior. Like "giving back", and "passionate about", and about every other phrase uttered by Hillary Clinton. If you don't need to work to put food on the table, it's "serve", if you do need to, then it's "work" - work to make the rich wealthy enough to not have to work but merely "serve". Why not just use "was"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does make them sound like a waiter. More importantly, remember WP:OSE. Also, as Tiptoethrutheminefield points out, self-service. Also it reminds me of a sign I saw in 2003. "Now proudly serving French fries since 2003," sign in Paris cafe window in answer to France's opposition to Bush's Iraq invasion and the Republican response naming them Freedom fries. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean the bit of WP:OSE which says "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. " Siuenti (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense. But, what is the change you are suggesting? Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If "serve" is undesirable, it should be taken out from these articles. Otherwise people shouldn't object to something like "has served as the 45th President since 2017" or "who is serving as the 45th president" merely because they contain the word "serving" Siuenti (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors are free to object to anything and everything here, and often do. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, editors are free to object to things they shouldn't object to. But it would be helpful if they didn't. Siuenti (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's an opinion about what they should and should not do and not based in fact. The sun should rise in the morning, because that's a scientific fact. But should an editor agree with you about something? That's called the tyranny of the should, implying fact where none exists. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the kind of tyrant who says "it would be helpful if people didn't do stuff" Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Siuenti. I don't think the verb makes people all sound like waiters and waitresses. All kinds of people serve as all kinds of things. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Civil servants (note the term servants) and soldiers regularly state as a badge of honor that they serve the country. I don’t see how this can be construed as a negative. Besides, what’s wrong with serving pizza? I like pizza. Objective3000 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have served my country and pizza. Occasionally at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are a credit to your country. Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And to pizza..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A question for people who support and/or object to "serve" : would you be ok with something like "has been the (45th) President of the United States since January 2017". We can say "is serving as the 45th President" but we can't say "is being the 45th President". People (including myself) oppose "is the 45th President" on the grounds of ambiguity. Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

An explanation helps there. If you don't like 'is the 45th president." But why is it ambiguous? He will forever be the only 45th president. You might think of it that way. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly why it doesn't convey the information that he is now the president. Siuenti (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But it does give him his historical number, which is also very important. He is the 45th, and current President of the United States." Or, "He is the incumbent, and 45th President of the United States." Although incumbent is mentioned in the Infobox. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We can’t spoon feed readers. I think we can assume readers haven’t just come out of a coma or cryogenic chamber. Pardon me for saying so; but seems there’s rather an unusual amount of nitpicking in this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and more. I had to engage on talk to get a run on sentence shortened. When you have to get consensus for copyedits. . .SW3 5DL (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if there was less "nitpicking" we wouldn't have to go through so much discussion to make improvements. "Everyone knows that" and "it makes him sound like a waiter" are however not nitpicking at all but vital points that must be defended to the end. Siuenti (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this nitpicking. I do call it obsessive focus on minutiae. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The original meaning is to provide a service to someone. Waiters serve customers, the President serves the people of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The original meaning is to be a servant, from the French servir, "to serve", which originates from the Latin servus, a slave. To apply it to a person in a position of ultimate power is a sort of reverse puffery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The word citizen originally means “inhabitant of a city”. Clearly not applicable to this article. We are not in Rome – so we need not do as the Romans. Objective3000 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Citizens in city cafes serve customers French fries. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, the United States is a republic, not a monarchy, and ultimate power rests in the people, who are served by elected and appointed officials. In a monarchy, the people serve the sovereign. I don't know if Trump is planning any major changes of that sort, but none have been made yet. TFD (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The US actually modeled itself on the Roman Empire, just look at its banknotes, the architecture of its governmental buildings, its seals of office, it even has a senate. And it has an Empire-like pyramidal power structure with those at the top able to appoint or dismiss officials below them, based on their allegiance to those at the top. Monarchs do "serve", they consider themselves divinely appointed and so serve God's interests on earth: that is, ultimately, their sole claim to power (though being lucky in war / peace / or popularity helps maintain that power). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors: I would like to acknowledge the contributions of our own server, "En", whx has been faithfully serving the people, the officials, and the sovereign since 2001. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! A jolly good servant we have indeed! — JFG ^talk 07:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion sounds like ridiculous nitpicking. "Serving as" is an extremely common way to introduce the role of a civil servant or an elected official, worldwide. It is not in the least disparaging and I for one failed to connect this expression with pizza or French waiters until somebody made this point here. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So @JFG: do you object to saying that Trump is serving as the 45th President? Siuenti (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not at all: I even used this formulation in my preferred wording above: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. — JFG ^talk 12:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield and SW3 5DL: you do still object to this wording? 12:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest "....personality and politician, and, since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States". i.e., essentially what it is right now. Having the date there is arguable, but it is an important detail to have in the lede somewhere given that the length of time in office is so significant.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks good to me (apart from consecutive blue links meh). I wonder how @JFG: feels, hopefully not too objectionable. Siuenti (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, clumsy, too many commas. — JFG ^talk 16:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggest the discussion be hatted before we start talking about anchovies. Objective3000 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is not going to change without RfC consensus to change it. As you know, I oppose such an RfC on cost-benefit grounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to determine the acceptability or not of the word "serving" before any Rfc rather than during one. Siuenti (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To what end? "Serving" is ok per dictionary. Not "serving" is also ok. Wasting time on pointless distinctions, not ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To the end of having a lede sentence with consensus. If I were to say to people "the dictionary says X is OK so your objection is invalid" people might call me a tryant again. Siuenti (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence already has consensus. See #Current consensus item 11. It's not just any old garden-variety consensus, but one that involved massive investment of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You interpret this RfC as showing consensus for the current lead sentence? Siuenti (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No. An open RfC cannot show consensus, since the consensus is determined at close. The consensus of which I speak is embodied in the six discussions linked at #Current consensus item 11. If you read all of that and claim that it does not show consensus for the current first sentence, you will be the first to make such a claim, and that includes all of the editors who have been at this article throughout the entire ordeal process. We are past the point of diminishing returns as to first sentence. In other words, while we might be able to make small improvements, they wouldn't be worth the time that it takes to reach a consensus to make them, diverting attention from more important things. We should always weigh benefit against cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus. If there is an RfC on whether or not to have an RfC, I’m opposed. We are nearing WP:STICK territory. Objective3000 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I suggest you get someone to declare that discussion of the lede sentence is closed because "no event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." Siuenti (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, you get someone to declare otherwise. I believe you're in a minority on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary page break

The RfC above is heavily trending towards supporting some mention of Trump being the current president; that's a new event for purposes of determining current consensus. I see no problem discussing potential ways to phrase such a mention in case the RfC trend is not reversed. Hopefully we can reach consensus on a single formulation, which would then be implemented, or on two top choices, which would then need to be exposed to a further RfC… — JFG ^talk 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, another dozen or so editor-hours spent on the first sentence, for marginal subjective improvement. If you think that will be the end of it, you're sadly mistaken as there will always be another Siuenti. But by all means carry on. At least you're speaking with the benefit of historical perspective at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the sentence as is right now, should be a choice. As Mandruss points out, it is a marginal improvement. And while we're on the subject of the content in the lede, 'plurality' should just be eliminated. Why do we even have to mention it in the lede? It's in the campaign section. Why not just say the guy won on January 20 and move on? Nobody likes the damn word and here we are, still stuck with it. Why not have Mandruss just put up a quick survey like he did for the Infobox? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If we could just eliminate this last bit. . .and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote." I think if you put up a quick survey like you did for the Infobox, maybe this time it'll work. Does anybody really care that he is the fifth to lose a plurality? The fifth? Maybe the first, yes, but five? Does anybody recall who came in 5th place in men's freestyle in Rio? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not your guy. The alma mater field did not already have massive editor investment. I decline to participate in any future discussion of the first sentence, beyond !voting to abort any RfCs about it, and the occasional comment in other discussions about it. There will always be just one more "last bit". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for that statement? e.g. show us an article which has always needed one last bit? Siuenti (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: I think he's referring to long experience. So what do you think of the 'plurality?' SW3 5DL (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? That evidence is right here on this page. We've yet to see the end of demands to revisit the first sentence, or of editors' willingness to entertain those demands. Sure, you're willing to be satisfied if we discuss just one more last bit, but what about the next guy's last bit, and the ones after that? Is there some reason we should give you more consideration than we do them? What if we reach a consensus for a change that you like, it gets added to the list, and then somebody else comes along and wishes to discuss changing it back? Are you going to stick around and spend your limited time defending your change indefinitely? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So this person wants to reverse a change that had consensus, they give their reasons and people say "Oh those sound like good reasons, better than the justification for making the change", and it gets changed back with consensus. And then the next person comes along, and their reasons are even better that the guy before's, and they persuade people to change it back again, and there is an infinite supply of new reasons good enough to get people to change their minds from consensus for to consensus against and equilibrium is never reached.Siuenti (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And the minimal improvements, each smaller than the one before, are not nearly worth that time investment, while more important things are being neglected for lack of time and focus. You seem to think that editor time is an infinite resource, like money growing on trees. You have no concept of cost-benefit evaluations. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't feel that telling people he is president now is an important issue, but maybe you can understand why people would think it is. You are saying that people will come along and provide great arguments why it's really, really important NOT to tell people he's president now, and they get consensus for going through this arduous procedure just so people don't get told something all of them allegedly know. Siuenti (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article already tells people he is president now. Unlike you I don't assume that a reader is going to come to the page, read the first sentence, and leave. Actually I think that is extremely unlikely to happen. If it happens ten times during his presidency, those ten readers' continued ignorance about the who the current US president is is not going to be my number one priority. This is what I mean when I say "minimal improvement". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

OK the bit which tells people he is president now is "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016", or is it "incumbent" in the hatnote? Siuenti (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's both. Not to mention "Assumed office January 20, 2017" just below "Incumbent". And that's assuming they never make it past the lead, even to notice the words "Election to the presidency" under "2016 presidential campaign" in the TOC. And all this assumes that the present-tense verb "is" is not really present-tense. Let's review former presidents.
Obama: "Served". Past tense.
Bush2: "Served". Past tense.
Clinton: "Served". Past tense.
Bush1: "Was". Past tense.
Reagan: "Was". Past tense.
Carter: "Served". Past tense.
Ford: "Served". Past tense.
Nixon: "Served". Past tense.
Johnson: "Served". Past tense.
Kennedy: "Served". Past tense.
I'm tired and stopping. Number of former presidents for whom we use a present-tense verb to refer to their presidency: Z E R O. But, according to you, it's critical that we clarify this question for the reader who has lived in a cave since January. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States" is a true statement", how are people supposed to know Wikipedia doesn't actually say it? I'm not really concerned about cave-dwellers, more people in remote communities in developing countries. Siuenti (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Obama was the 44th president. He is not any president now, 44th or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So Mandruss has already seen this post but didn't find it "really compelling"

User:Mandruss, According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". I could go on and on with further quotations like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: quoting you

Just because something is phrased in present tense doesn't mean it describes the present. It's weird, but writers often use something called "literary present" and "historical present".[26] Likewise, with regard to former officeholders, they are often properly addressed by their former title if it was an office/rank that many people can hold at the same time, like Senator, Judge, Captain, Admiral, General, or Professor.[27] So merely using present tense doesn't necessarily describe the present.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That point has already been countered. While we call retired admirals "Admiral X", we don't say that X is an admiral. We say s/he is a retired admiral. I'm not going to reiterate that point again, and I don't care what your cherry-picked sources say. We are past circular, and I've wasted enough of my time trying to convince you that we are talking about matters not worth the time it takes to reach a consensus to resolve them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: What do you want the lede to say? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anthing which clearly states he is president now, ideally giving Jan 2017 as the start date. My favourites are:

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017

from JFG and

....personality and politician, and, since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States

from Tiptoethrutheminefield.

There seem to be issues with commas and sounding like a waiter, but I don't they would have enough support to overturn a consensus. Siuenti (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, of course they wouldn't be enough to overturn those choices, and commas can be sorted. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be late but, I wanted to add the fact that Donald Trump, himself, has stated that "I want to serve the people." I'm just saying. PersistantCorvid (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@PersistantCorvid:This is an April fool's joke, right? Haha? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with saying "servng as president," because he is, in fact, a civil servant. If my wording was comical it was unintended. PersistantCorvid (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we stop discussing the lede?

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.

---

Should we stop discussing the lede because, as Objective3000 puts it, "no event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus"? Siuenti (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC) The current consensus being:

11. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

• What? - Do we need a thread asking editors to agree to not discuss something? That's never going to happen, and consensus can change. The existing lede sentence is absolutely fine, does not need alteration, and is currently in the list of "consensus" things at the top of this talk page; however, asking editors to agree not to discuss things is a total non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Abort - I'm considering starting a new thread: Should we stop discussing whether to stop discussing the lead (sentence)? Somebody hat this, please. Enough is enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hang on a sec! Shouldn't we have an RfC to discuss whether or not to close a discussion on whether or not to stop discussing whether or not to stop discussing the exhaustively discussed sentence? That really needs to be discussed first. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm undecided. Let's discuss that. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was satirical humor, lest anybody get the wrong impression and discuss that. I've learned not to assume people can see my tongue lodged firmly in my cheek, no matter how blindingly obvious I think that is. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If this continues much longer, I'm going to start posting images of cute kittens. Objective3000 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

. . .and cute puppies. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Pride_(9103931453)_(cropped).jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

not quite there yet. . .but good effort. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2017 (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.

Can we nominate Donald Trump as a Good Article?

The article Donald Trump has been edited extensively over the last four months and I feel that it should be nominated as a Good Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredBored (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! You want to nominate a C-class article for GA? Good luck with that. The page has way too many problems. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoredBored: It would need someone to review and tell us what needs to change and editors here would have to make the commitment. It would be nice if we could get it to GA. I understand ThatGirlTayler's sceptisim, but the editors here could do it. It would be nice to have editors with GA experience guiding things along. If you know of anyone, please send them over. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@ThatGirlTayler: "You want to nominate a C-class article for GA? Good luck with that. The page has way too many problems."

Like what, and in which section?

@SW3 5DL: Well what about User:Mandruss as a reviewer? S/he seems like they colud be a good fit for the job -- BoredBored (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Ask him. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GAREVIEW, the reviewer must not "have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". I think I fail that test, if only barely. But thanks for the compliment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad. So how do we get somebody? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't it nominated three times in the past and failed to be listed? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoredBored: I nominated it, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatGirlTayler (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal Pope also said: “…but men of sense approve.” I don’t think we’re there yet. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Yes, but when has that ever mattered on this talk page? Pope was a fun guy though, wasn't he? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about being less ambitious and aiming for B-class first? Then perhaps GA in a couple months and FA during summer (you may say I'm a dreamer…) — JFG ^talk 14:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. And the nom should be retracted until this is decided, lest we risk wasting a GA reviewer's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 DoneThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC for best sentence to describe status of 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.

---

• This RfC asks “Which one of the proposed lede sentences below, from A, B, or C, do you believe will best describe for the reader the status of Trump's presidency?
• Note 1.
• All choices have been taken from suggestions made by editors in previous, but very recent, discussions. I did not craft all of this. I only crafted one. I did my level best to find these. If you have other suggestions, please start your own RfC. Seven sentences is plenty for this one.
• Note 2.
• Whatever sentence you choose, it will begin with, Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician.. . .. There is currently no support to change the beginning portion of the sentence. If you want changes there, please start your own RfC.
• There are suggestions for two sentence and one sentence solutions. There are also suggestions to keep what is in the article right now. All are below:
• A. Two sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is__
  1. __the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  2. __the 45th and current President of the United States.
• B. One sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician__
  1. __and since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States.
  2. __and the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  3. __serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017.
  4. __and the 45th and current President of the United States.
• C. Keep what is there now
  1. __ and the 45th President of the United States.
• Please indicate in the survey section, A or B or C, and the number. Please also use the reply function in the discussion section if you wish to comment on another editor's choices, so as not to disrupt the survey section. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Abort - Quoting Objective3000, "No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." For any new arrivals, that consensus is linked at #Current consensus item 11. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - I'm not sure there is consensus to modify both the hatnote and the lead, although there does appear to be consensus for modifying the lead if the hatnote is modified. In any event, the RFC question presented here is rather complex, and it seems to have skipped the ordinary discussion and survey phase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support B2. It seems to have positive comments in previous discussions. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• B4 (second one) - Minor preference just because of precedent that the Obama entry was phrased with 'current President'. Mostly just not a lot of preference between these choices, they're all pretty reasonable. Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Current wording is fine. And editor time is way better spent improving the rest of the article that getting into another long, protracted debate over the first sentence. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Too. Many. Damn. Choices. Will. Never. Result. In. A. Consensus. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort. Beginning to have concerns about CIR... MelanieN or Anythingyouwant, would one of you be willing to take over? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort Jeeeeeezus. Please, please stop creating RfCs. They are designed for DISPUTE RESOLUTION, only for WHEN NORMAL DISCUSSION HAS BROKEN DOWN. This is the most RfC-happy talk page in Wikipedia history. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why this RfC:

Starting here with a 'survey about the lede, and here with what is 'universally acceptable text,' and here with a discussion section, the lede has been discussed recently, and in depth, by several editors, who invested a lot of their time. Just when it seemed things had been winnowed down, along came this which only suggests we include either 'incumbent,' 'current,' or 'serving as.'

Because it is not specific, and did not address proposed sentences, or even keeping things as they are, it won't solve anything. It just postpones the discussion, which will have to resume after that closes. Very likely, that will then winnow down the choices, like the other discussion/survey did, and then be followed by someone usurping the gathering consensus with another vague RfC. So I’ve sorted through the discussions, read what others were saying, and I included all those bits in this RfC.

• This RfC includes keeping things as they are, because editors have suggested that, too. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

• Comment: @Mandruss: and you'll note that the consensus 11 which is currently in the article, is also a choice. So if you want what is there to stay, feel free to ivote C1. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't just want to retain status quo, far more important is to stop wasting editor resources debating changes to the first sentence (I think I've made that abundantly clear). Hence my Abort !vote. Also noting that you have again started an overlapping RfC, as this one that had to be SNOW aborted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not a good RfC because I misunderstood what was wanted. I've researched these threads and comments. As for editor's time, each one of us has to decide that for ourselves. But this endless bickering over this needs to end. Anythingyouwant did have a good idea and I don't know why he did the RfC he did, but it does not address the issue and is not at all overlapping here. I've explained my rationale, I've included gathering consensus, and that's all anyone can ask for. And as far as the 'abort' ivote, there is no policy for disrupting an RfC. All you need to do is abstain from voting. It doesn't force you to do anything. But no one has the right to disrupt a well thought out, well presented question for the community to decide. And no one knows that better than you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC was closed by an admin just yesterday, for no other reason than six experienced editors "disrupted" it by !voting to abort it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, this RfC was not closed. This is brand new. The other one was nothing like this one and was a terrible RfC and the admin saw that. This is not that. This is nothing like that. This one takes into account previous discussion, it incorporates editor's suggestions and edit preferences, including keeping things as they are. It gives specific choices that were suggested by the editors here. If you believe it should be closed, then please go find an admin. But I would ask the admin to read it thoroughly and go through the previous discussions first. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not going to go find an admin. I am, however, going to !vote to abort this RfC. And I have done so. If there is insufficient support for abort, the RfC will play out normally. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no sufficient rationale to shut this down and disruption by piling on with 'abort' in an effort to wave off editors, will not do it. That's what admins are for. This question is based on community discussion, suggestions, and what editors have said they want. This RfC seeks to satisfy that. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, admins do not decide whether or not a hard-fought consensus needs to be discussed further. The article's editors do. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They decide when something is disruption. And that's all I'll say on the matter. I've explained the rationale, I've presented a well-written question, offered choices that come from editors in the discussions, and also address the question of keeping what is in the article right now. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (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.

Two sentences for the lead paragraph?

Judging from previous conversations at this talk page, it seems likely that the hatnote will be shortened and will no longer say Trump is the incumbent, and it also seems likely that the lead paragraph will accordingly be edited to say that Trump is president nowadays. Given that we'll probably be putting the latter info into the lead paragraph, this seems like a good opportunity to split the lead paragraph into two sentences. Per Wikipedia:Writing better articles, "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." That's not a policy or guideline, but it's still good advice. Books about writing style often say that a one-sentence paragraph can be used sparingly for emphasis, or as a transition between longer paragraphs, but here we need neither (because anything in the lead paragraph automatically is emphasized, and because there's no transition between paragraphs). If we add the bit about being in office now, the lead sentence becomes kind of bulky, so it's a perfect candidate to be split in two. So let's have a survey. Do you support a two-sentence lead paragraph?

• Support as proposer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – Isn't this very thing being considered in about eleventy-billion existing discussions somewhat north of this one? -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – "No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." See #Current consensus item 11. I will point out, again, that "should be used sparingly" is not the same as "should not be used". My view is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with offsetting the most important sentence in the article with a paragraph break. I say this not to engage myself in this time sink, but to illustrate certain editors' hearing difficulty and propensity for weak arguments (in this matter). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I sympathize with the need to break down convoluted sentences, the lead of this article is sharp enough and we have elegant ways to add Trump's entry into office without bludgeoning the prose. For a two-line paragraph (one-line if your screen is wide enough), I don't think the guidance you quote applies. See for example my preferred wording: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. Splitting this would sound forced. Or Trumpian. But I'm sure there are other ways. Good ones. Words. Short words are best. Believe me! — JFG ^talk 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – It seems like a good idea to break down big complicated problems into smaller, less complicated problems and work on resolving them one at a time. I don't mind the two-sentence solutions, but JFG's way is better IMO because it avoids apparent redundancy ("current" is said to be redundant with "is the 45th POTUS") and includes the important context of start time. It would also be possible to have a relative clause instead of a new sentence, e.g. "who has served as" or "who has been" Siuenti (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – I've put the choices from the prior discussion below. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: @JFG:, The admin said to get consensus. That's what I'm doing. If you're really interested in improving this sentence, then the choices below are what has been discussed in previous threads about it. Please don't close it again. This isn't an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. The only difference between your RfC and your non-RfC is that the latter lacks the "RfC" keyword. But that won't make it magically succeed. — JFG ^talk 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It presents the choices from the editors in discussions about this. It will start to narrow down what works best. Why not give it a chance? These are comments from the editors here, including you. You do have to consider all suggestions, not just your own. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Not required here, but preferred. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Placing the information in a single-sentence lead graf may amount to overemphasis. And compare with FA Barack Obama (19 January 2017) (2 sentences); George W. Bush (19 January 2009) (3 sentences); and FA Elizabeth II (2 sentences). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium on first sentence

Ok, let's try for a clear consensus on the issue of continued time spent on the first sentence.

• 1 - Allow discussion/RfCs of the first sentence to continue as long as any editor wishes to discuss/RfC it, forever. Per WP:RFC, RfCs should not be started unless open discussion has failed to reach consensus.
• 2 - Moratorium beginning now and ending at the end of Trump's first term or his early exit from office, subject to renewal. Abort all current discussions. Moratorium will not apply if something happens to render the first sentence patently false.
• 3 - Moratorium beginning after all current discussions have played out, and ending at the end of Trump's first term or his early exit from office, subject to renewal. "Current discussions" means those active in this revision of this page. Moratorium will not apply if something happens to render the first sentence patently false.

-

• 2 or 3, in that order of preference. The massive prior investment is linked at #Current consensus item 11. We are past the point of diminishing returns, and there are more important things being neglected for lack of time and focus. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• After the current attempt to gain consensus succeeds or fails, discourage any further discussion which does not "raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" WP:TALKEDABOUTIT Siuenti (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to adding an option, but: 1. What "current attempt to gain consensus" are you referring to? There are multiple current discussions of multiple issues. 2. "Discourage" is not strong enough to be of much real benefit (Wikipedia editors are not known for their willingness to be discouraged). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1 – In general, I oppose moratoria, however I approve heavy WP:TROUTing of premature, confusing or hopeless RfCs. We have on this page two examples of good RfCs, and three examples of bad ones (edit: now four); it's easy to see which is which by reading the bulk of spontaneous comments from various editors. But we shouldn't stifle legitimate discourse just because some people fail to see what's wrong with the shape of their proposals (even when their intent is pure). Hence no moratorium. — JFG ^talk 14:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Please don't misunderstand my position, which would be the same without the recent abuse of the RfC process. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I know your position, and you know mine. We discussed a potential moratorium about portraits, and were split along the same lines. — JFG ^talk 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I was misled by "just because some people fail to see what's wrong with the shape of their proposals". Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @Anythingyouwant, SW3 5DL, MelanieN, Dervorguilla, Scjessey, Objective3000, and MrX: @The Four Deuces, SusanLesch, and Emir of Wikipedia: Pinging major/recent contributors to this page. Issue really needs a resolution, and the sooner the better. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The admin, Ad Orientem, seems to have solved the whole problem below. I think it's brilliant. It's like he cut the Gordian Knot. This is what can happen when you open it up to the community. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think a resolution on one content issue solves the problem addressed by this section, you don't understand the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I think/know: I see a way forward with an excellent solution that addresses all concerns and I support it fully. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As I suspected, you fail to grasp the problem. It may address one immediate content issue. It does not begin to address the ongoing problem. Someone new will be along shortly to discuss their ever-so-important idea for an improvement to the first sentence (if not someone who is already here but just hadn't thought of their ever-so-important idea before). Given past experience, that is a fact that no rational person would dispute. This section attempts to decide, in advance, what to do in that case, and all following ones until, most likely, January 2021. If we fail to decide this now, we will repeat the incredible time waste of the past week or two again, and again, and again, indefinitely. Do you understand now? If you want no limits on future discussion of the first sentence, please !vote 1 here. Look at it this way: A 1 consensus here is the surest and most trouble-free way to get Mandruss to shut up about this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1, no moratoria on discussion. However, that does not preclude moratoria on editors who abuse this page (e.g. via ANI).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• FFS - Please stop creating new discussions on the same sentence. I've been AFK for a couple of hours and there are already two more to add to the many that already exist. The current opening sentence is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: You do understand that this is not a content discussion? Your FFS sort of implies that you perceive this as just "more of the same". To the contrary, it seeks to end the "more of the same", for awhile, in a structured and clear way, unlike previous disorganized attempts. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I just think ALL discussions related to the first sentence should be in a single thread. No new threads until old threads are archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• 2 or 3. This talk page descended into a waste of time. If this article is a serious candidate for GA, get to work. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Regarding 2; the first criteria for a GA includes "Well written" and "correct grammar". The lede sentence is badly written and has incorrect grammar. (Non-parallel list) Siuenti (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Nitpicking, pedantic perfectionism. Precious little actual added reader value proposed. See diminishing returns and cost-benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  What is the reader value in having Good Articles that don't actually meet the criteria? Siuenti (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Again, you're tunnel-visioning on the first sentence and failing to consider the big picture. Again, "Do you dispute that there are likely signifiicant problems with important things like neutrality and verifiability, in this and other articles, that are being neglected...?". Do you honestly believe that this article is perfect in those more important areas? When it becomes perfect in those areas—or, hell, even really close to perfect—then sure, I have no objection to spending our time discussing the polishing of grammar past the point of acceptable reading clarity. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: A moratorium is counter to the principles of Wikipedia. You seem to be attempting to control what editors can and cannot suggest, propose, or edit into the article. Consensus can change and on a high traffic article such as this, it will keep changing. The Barack Obama lede sentence changed over time, It had multipe permutations. This one will also, including everything in it. It is not wise to think getting a handful of editors together to decide no new ideas are allowed, will ever be accepted by the larger community. See WP:OWN. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  You may be right. I've seen an overwhelming local consensus as to process, involving many experienced editors and with the endorsement of two admins, overriden by a single other admin. Bizarre shit happens at Wikipedia. But I think you're wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  FYI at Talk:Barack_Obama/FAQ there seems to be an OTHERCONSENSUS as follows: (Q13)

  A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics.

  Siuenti (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I support swift closure IF the new discussion did not reference a pertinent consensus listed at the top of the talk page, or it's vandalism, or a BLP violation, or soapboxing, etc. Otherwise, let's hear what the person has to say, and maybe then shut the conversation down if enough editors pile on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3 We should let the other discussion on this page play out too. After that we should have the moratorium until Trump leaves the office, as nothing should change in the sentence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, 2, 3, and any moratorium or discussion closure. This is disruption by consensus. Constantly going back to the so-called 'consensus 11,' is becoming disruptive in itself, and can also be seen as tendentious SW3 5DL (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• 1 per comments by Anythingyouwant and Siuenti. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Which one of the proposed lede sentences will best describe Trump's current status as president?

“Which one of the proposed lede sentences below, from A, B, or C, do you believe will best describe for the reader the status of Trump's presidency?

• A. Two sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is__
  1. __the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  2. __the 45th and current President of the United States.

• B. One sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician__
  1. __and since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States.
  2. __and the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  3. __serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017.
  4. __and the 45th and current President of the United States.

• C. Keep what is there now
  1. __ and the 45th President of the United States.
• Please indicate in the survey section, A or B or C, and the number. Please also use the reply function in the discussion section if you wish to comment on another editor's choices, so as not to disrupt the survey section. Thank you. SW3 5DL

• D. Keep it simple, and put the rest in the body of the article.
• 1. Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.

• E. Please note: Ad Orientem has proposed wording for the full sentence:

Donald John Trump'(born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

Feel free to indicate support/oppose for this.

Survey on opening sentence

• This is silly. The lead sentence should simply state what he is most famous for. Ergo it should read "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States. That's it. Nothing more. Everything else is secondary and can follow somewhere else in the lead or further down in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E - 'Proposed text for the opening paragraph of the lead...

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• E. Per Ad Orientem. Keep it simple, and I also support the full sentence he has proposed. Thank you Ad Orientem, you've cut the Gordian Knot. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E Consistent with other articles. We do not say "Barack Obama is a community organizer and politician_" TFD (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E, because it's not a one-sentence paragraph, and cuts right to the chase. My only qualm is with the word "current" per MOS:Current. The word "current" sounds like "for today at least", whereas the word "incumbent" connotes a longer period of time. But I am not going to edit-war about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E, per recommendations given in WP:SEAOFBLUE (avoid placing links next to each other); MOS:PARAGRAPHS (minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs); and WP:BETTER (use one-sentence paragraphs sparingly). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E. Straightforward, basic, and well-written, with the most important fact first. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• E – Much clearer than everything we had so far. And seems to raise no strong objections from the regulars here; that's no small feat! — JFG ^talk 07:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - @Ad Orientem: I see you have made this edit. Do you believe that an agreement among three four editors is enough to replace the consensus linked at #Current consensus item 11? A number of editors, including me and admin MelanieN, have repeatedly said that an RfC would be necessary to replace that consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that another RfC is required to change anything in an article. If consensus can be reached through talk page discussion that's fine. That said my edit was WP:BOLD. I do believe the previous wording was flawed as it placed his being President at the end of the list of things for which he is known. That is contrary to normal convention and it looked almost like an afterthought. If someone wants to revert it I'm not going to edit war. But I do believe rather strongly that the current wording is much better and in line with WP:LEAD and normal convention when writing BLPs. Also I'm not seeing any opposition at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your bold edit occurred 29 minutes after you started this subsection, replacing a massive documented consensus. If that's how to behave at an article under ArbCom remedies, a whole lot of editors have been going about things the wrong way. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted per your objection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that very often it is only two or three editors deciding consensus on this page. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Point me to a single case where such a consensus replaced one like that linked at #Current consensus item 11. Just one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This so-called 'consensus 11' is becoming tendentious and is disrupting this talk page. It prevents any progress in improving the article. I agree with Ad Orientem, we don't need an RfC for everything, but lately we've had to because of a few editors clinging to something that is meant to change anyway. That's just how it is on Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A 20-pound consensus is not meant to be changed by a 1-pound consensus, and that concept has been consistently re-affirmed for as long as I've been at this article. (In your shoes I think I'd lay off the disruption accusations for awhile. Recent history shows that you're not very good at judging disruption, including your own.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Current consensus is just that. It was a declaration of what consensus was at that time. I have no objection to citing it to prevent obviously disruptive editing or editors just going cowboy on the article. But using it in an effort to lock important parts of the article from organic development and improvement through routine editing is misrepresenting what an RfC is supposed to be for. The lead paragraph as it currently stands is pretty substandard and does not conform to the guideline WP:LEAD. But we apparently can't change it because at least one and maybe a few other editors believe that it is off limits sans another RfC. Something is broken here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is very broken here. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Ad Orientem. I and more than a few other editors disagree, at least judging by their past comments and behavior. We have fairly consistently subscribed to a concept of "consensus weight", and that has been how the page has operated at least since the inception of the consensus list. I'll bow out for now and see if the others want to adjust their positions based on your comments. I'm also quite close to moving on, as no Wikipedia issue is worth this much stress. This has been my primary home since about September, and perhaps that's too long in one place. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That list can stop cowboys, but it also stops editors coming here in good faith to improve the article. They open a thread and they are immediately shut down. The lede sentence has absolutely no place on that list if it stops what is now a mediocre sentence from being brought up to WP standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever proper to revert because of "no consensus" or "insufficient consensus" alone. See WP:Don't revert because of no consensus. To revert legitimately, you also have to believe substantively that the article is better after the revert than before. So far, User:Mandruss has not opposed the version "E" proposed by User:Ad Orientem, AFAIK. So, I am seriously considering reverting back to Version "E" which I think has unanimous support so far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: We can keep incumbent in the infobox. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) You have GOT to be kidding. I'm not going to start the ANI complaint, but I would support one. Did you see JFG's comment about the impossibility of reaching a consensus with this many options? If so, do you fail to grasp the reasoning behind it? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• And the admin said to get consensus. These are the previous suggestions. Whatever choices get the most responses, will start to eliminate the others. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Markbassett and Fyddlestix: The RfC was closed but this is the new thread for consensus if you want to put in your ivote here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: That's the best suggestion yet. I think that would solve it. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  Nope. It excludes the crucial "politician" - a dealbreaker for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's a deal breaker because it says that he entered politics instead of that he became a politician???Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It says, 'prior to entering politics,' which is the same thing. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have got to be kidding me. this has been surveyed to death and the article needs to be stable in order to get a GA rating, just keep that in mind. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@ ThatGirlTayler Article stability could be a problem given the nature of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem I just don't see it getting a GA rating because the article is constantly changing back and forth. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the nature of the subject is working against a GA nomination. The unhappy fact is the article is about one of the most controversial figures in modern politics, who can't get through a week without creating some new controversy. That pretty much guarantees that the article is going to be a perpetual object of heated editing. We might as well nail the {{currentperson}} template to the top of the article until he leaves office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@ThatGirlTayler and Ad Orientem: The nature of the subject, as well as the current state of the lede sentence. That would have to change to reach GA. I imagine it is this kind of resistance that has prevented the article from getting there in the past. I think the proposal we have now solves the problem of the lede sentence. At least for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The current lead sentence (C1) uses broken syntax, which could suggest to readers that article as a whole may be broken... Let's show them all how we Wikipedians deal with problem sentences!  :)
I do have to point out a factual error, though. The second sentence needs to say: "Prior to assuming the presidency he was a businessman and television personality." Let's continue with this otherwise exemplary consensus-building discussion on the presumption that this necessary correction is going to be incorporated into the final text.
Per the admonition at WP:TALKDONTREVERT about stonewalling, I'd like to restore Ad Orientem's edit, and, while I'm at it, include the needed factual correction and the agreed-upon change to the hat (as discussed). This can be done relatively quickly (let's say around this time tomorrow). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 00:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: It needs to say, "prior to entering politics," as mention of now being a politician is important to some editors. Prior to entering politics, makes it clear he is a politician now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Devirguilla's point is that Trump remained a businessman even after entering politics. The language of Version E is that, "Prior to entering politics he was a businessman...." He was a businessman both prior to and after entering politics, so Version E is correct. The more he got involved in politics, the less he was a businessman, and this can be (and is) clarified later in the lead and the BLP. But, I would not object to "Prior to entering politics full time, he was a businessman...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know E is correct because it correctly identifies that he was a businessman prior to entering politics. But Devorguilla seems to be suggesting "Prior to assuming the presidency, he was a businessman, etc." in place of "Prior to entering politicis. . ." The mention of politics needs to be there because there are editors who insist on it. That is why Ad Orientum's edit is so excellent. It covers everything. I'm really directing my question at her, to see if it was a typo. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about inserting "full time" per my previous comment?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Good point! Actually, I think we may all be correct here. The sentence can be interpreted as: "He was (once) a businessman. Then he entered politics." (Which would imply, he stopped being a businessman as a consequence of entering politics.) Or it can be read as: "Before entering politics, he was a businessman." (Which implies nothing about what he was between the time he entered politics in year 2000 and the time he became president.) Accordingly, I hasten to withdraw my objection to E as written. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Imminent RFC

I plan on starting an RFC soon. The choice will be simply between the longstanding version A of hatnote and lead paragraph, versus this Version B' that I and many others consider to be better and more compliant with guidelines and policies. The only caveat is that I may tweak the latter to use the word "incumbent" instead of "current" because of MOS:CURRENT (Trump holds the office not just currently but for years to come, in all probability). I discussed the latter issue at User talk:Ad Orientem, and am mentioning it here before I post the RFC. Anyway, I think this proposed RFC properly reflects where all of the recent discussions and RFCs and surveys are headed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up :) Siuenti (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• FYI I am going to close the discussion on my talk page. We should try and keep this in one place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It belongs here. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you're once again seeking to overturn a gathering consensus as you did here. That RfC effectively stopped discussion and diverted editors to a solution that your RfC does not offer. I oppose this. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. SW3, your comment does not compute. There has been an objection to Ad Orientem's version based on the fact that it has been subject to a mere survey instead of an RFC. So I want to put it to an RFC. Sheesh. Incidentally, you supported Ad Orientem's version, in case you forgot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We can make the active thread an RfC, but it will be as it is now, and not your version. You can include your version, but you cannot only offer the current edit, and then your 'tweaked' version. Sorry, you are being disruptive again, and given how you worded your RfC, you would need to present your choices here first to get consensus. We cannot have another diversion away from gathering consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As far as I can tell that objection was more procedural than an actual "I don't agree" objection. RfCs are cumbersome and in general should not be launched until an effort to obtain talk page consensus has been made, and failed. Right now I'm not seeing any hard opposition to this. Let's wait 24 hours and see where things are tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Please clarify. You're not seeing 'hard opposition' to what? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, to the version that he and I and even you support.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course I support it. It's brilliant. It covers it all. And there's no problem with 'current.' I looked at that link you provided. There's no need for an RfC at this time. And if it does come to that, the choices must be decided before hand. It cannot be allowed to be another unilateral choice by you. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

When you make the RfC, maybe you can ask both "is B better than A" and "are you happy with B or would you strongly prefer something else?" If people are happy with B we can take a break :) Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I suspect you may be "overthinking" here. Let's wait and see how this turns out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 00:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Also did you see my reply to you in the discussion regarding politician? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My error. I was thinking of the 15:39 revision, not the 18:01 revision. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I plan to wait at least 24 hours from now to start an RFC, and will only do so if the matter is not yet fully resolved. The version I would propose is (as of now):

For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and incumbent current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

The other choice would be the longstanding version. Regarding the proposed version (in green), we could insert "full time" after the word politics, but I'm not sure it's necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The word "incumbent" means, "currently holding an indicated ... office" (or "occupying a specified office at a time expressed or implied"). So there's no substantive difference in this context. And the current (or incumbent) consensus does appear to favor "current"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, there is a substantive difference. "The word incumbent most commonly refers to people holding political or clerical office, where the holder is assumed to have an advantage over any challenger for that office." An incumbent encumbers an office, thus making it difficult for anyone else to occupy the office. That's why we never refer to the incumbent weather or the incumbent traffic or the incumbent bestseller. This is exactly the distinction that MOS:Current refers to. When you refer to an "incumbent consensus", that's a misuse of the word, because consensus can easily change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything, You said, "The word incumbent most commonly refers to people holding political or clerical office where the holder is assumed to have an advantage over any challenger for that office." As I've stated before, incumbent is commonly used during election cycles because it perfectly describes the current president's advantage over his challenger. Go back to the 2012 election. Obama was the incumbent, is constantly referred to that way, as opposed to Romney, the challenger. This probably explains why it was not chosen for the Obama BLP. because 'current' was the better choice. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Obama was the incumbent even during his last year in office, no matter how much Republicans would have liked to have put someone else in there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: You omitted the comma that marks the appositive phrase as nonrestrictive. (Also, the suspension points in my closing sentence are meant to suggest that my parenthetical remark was intended to be humorous.)
But I do understand your concern. If someone says, "He's the current president", stressing the word "current", they could be suggesting that he may not be president for long. Yet that is the precise phrasing we used at George W. Bush and Barack Obama (both of whom served two full terms). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I just inserted the comma that I accidentally omitted. But it does not affect the assertion that "current" and "incumbent" do not mean exactly the same thing. An incumbent officeholder is current and difficult to immediately get out of the way. I am not committed to the word "incumbent" but I do think it better conforms with MOS:CURRENT. If there is clear consensus to not use it then I won't put it in the RFC, but we can do better than the Obama and Bush articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to mean he's president on a temporary basis. For 4 years, until the next election. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we've all been very conscientious here. At this point, I think we can agree to postpone further discussion for a day or so. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree, especially as at this point, there is no need for an RfC. If it becomes necessary later, then it would best be sorted by Ad Orientem. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If support for E continues to pile up, consensus will be clear enough and there will be no need for a formal RfC indeed. Let's give it a couple days. — JFG ^talk 07:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Current" works, so I crossed out "incumbent" in the green text above. The distinction between the two words in this context is minor. This BLP is frequently updated, so MOS:Current is not a problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• A thought It has occurred to me that we may not even need "current" or "incumbent." The word "is" clearly denotes present tense and we only have one president at a time. Articles about former presidents refer to their presidency in the past tense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Several of us have already thought of that. Others will be along shortly to explain to you how you're wrong, including (1) citing a few reliable sources that refer to former presidents using "is the nth president of the U.S." and (2) pointing out that former admirals and senators retain their titles after retirement. When you very effectively counter those very flawed arguments, they will simply ignore you. This is how things have been done here of late, and it makes me wonder what discussion is for. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Please point to where that happened. Siuenti (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sure.[28] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Your counter to those very flawed arguments was "While we call retired admirals "Admiral X", we don't say that X is an admiral. We say s/he is a retired admiral" ? and we ignored that? Siuenti (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see a response to it. Do you? The comments following it have nothing to do with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't respond to it because if no one gets the last word then a discussion never ends. I thought it was rather chivalrous for me to let you have the last word there. Your comment did not respond to my point that writers often use "historical present" and "literary present", and so the word "is" does not always signify present tense. If I say "Joe is a former farmer" then obviously that does not imply Joe is still a farmer today. Likewise, saying Trump is the 45th president does not imply he's president today. The word "is" does not always refer to present activities.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Your reasoning requires that "45th" implies "former", which it does not. It means nothing more than "next after 44th". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Exactly, your second sentence is spot on. That Trump is the 45th POTUS means nothing more than "next after 44th".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  At this point, an editor debating fairly will either (1) give reasoning or evidence that "45th" implies "former", or (2) concede the debate. That's how this business is supposed to work, and it too rarely does. If we are unprepared to recognize that our opponent (opponent in the debate sense; yes, I'm aware that we're all on the same side in the end) has presented a stronger argument, all this is pointless and we might as well just vote and be done with it, saving a vast amount of time and mental energy. This is not about last words. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I didn't say that "45th" implies "former" or that it implies "farmer".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  No, you didn't say that, and I didn't say that you did. I said that your reasoning depends on that. You used "Joe is a former farmer" as an example, but we don't have "former" in the sentence. Thus you are equating "45th" and "former", presenting them incorrectly as logically equivalent. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  No, my reasoning does not depend on "45th" implying "former" or implying "farmer". I have simply been pointing out that the word "is" does not necessarily refer to present activities, as in the sentence "Joe is a former farmer".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I am baffled by why you keep referring to "45th" implying "farmer". Where did that come from? But I give up here, you win. Great work. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Above in this section, I said "If I say 'Joe is a former farmer' then obviously that does not imply Joe is still a farmer today." You responded: "Your reasoning requires that '45th' implies 'former'". That's why I've said that "45th" does not imply "former" any more than it implies "farmer".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  If we need to give a different responses to 'we don't say that Trump "is the president of the United States"' and 'we don't say that X is an admiral' someone might complain that the discussion is getting repetitive. Siuenti (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: would you mind giving a summary of what you think our reasoning is? Siuenti (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw from this debate for reasons of cost-potential benefit. I'm pretty sure current/incumbent is unnecessary and superfluous there, but avoiding that one word is not worth the cost of reaching consensus to do so. As you know, I'm all about cost-benefit evaluations. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'm sorry we seem to have won by sheer persistence, and I'd like to thank you for taking a decision in the best interests of the encyclopedia. In terms of cost-benefit I think the cost if you are wrong is much higher than the cost if we are, that why I'm willing keep talking until we get the right answer or it's clear we will never get there. Siuenti (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think we ought to mess with success here. The proposed hatnote and lead paragraph are on the verge of acceptance, after a long, long discussion. It is true that the word "is" could be used instead of current, but only if the number "45th" is moved, e.g. like this "Trump is the president of the united states. He is the 45th...." So, the change from "current" to "is" doesn't accomplish much.According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". These sources are correct, and many more are available upon request, showing that a statement like "Trump is the 45th president" does not indicate he's in office now. PLEASE NOTE: we had an RFC about this issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: You're getting into the weeds. Stay away from the 'is' argument. I can give you diffs. Your sentence truly has cut the Gordian Knot on this. That's why you have so much support. With this much, MelanieN would normally now show up and say she thinks there's support for your sentence. She's not been round much lately. Don't know why. But what we don't want is more disruption by changing your sentence, then adding in more choices, and another RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough. We will stick with the currently proposed language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  Stay away from the 'is' argument. - This from an editor who loudly opposes any limits on discussion. In a cruel twist of fate, MelanieN has a vacation notice posted on her talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Please stop making everything about you. Your proposal to put a draconian moratorium on discussion is beyond the pale. I'm clearly not doing that in my comment. Please stop with the battlefield comments. If you can't get on with editors here without insults, then go elsewhere. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Stunning hypocrisy, absolutely amazing. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• We can avoid the redundancy discussion if we put January 2017 in somewhere. I also think that would provide valuable context. I think we should implement the current new wording right now because it's a clear improvement, and then take a while to see if we can get something with even more consensus. Siuenti (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Would that include "serving since January 2017?" SW3 5DL (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I know some people object to "serving", I can't remember exactly who. If there is enough objection to "serving" and we can't find anything else which satisfies people, the title would stay with "current". Siuenti (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Serving" is the noun form of the infinitive "To Serve," which is an intransitive verb. As a noun, "serving" is defined by Merriam-Webster as 'a portion.' As in, a plate of spaghetti.' or a 'serving of French fries.' As for '. . .since January 2017,' the infobox takes care of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So you oppose any further attempt to improve the lede after the current version is implemented? Siuenti (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "serving since" language in the lead paragraph is unnecessary, because it's enough to say there that he's POTUS now, and we can say later in the article exactly when he started being POTUS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That was just an example of something people like. My proposal is to discuss some more and see we can get an even better version after this one is implemented. Do you actually object to that happening? Let's not talk about "serving" and "January 2017" here and now. Siuenti (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Lets not make this more complicated than absolutely necessary. Remember the KISS rule. The currently proposed wording works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does work. It unknotted the impossibly knotted. Let's not tie the knot again. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April Fools Day 2017 is now over, UTC. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments-redirect page to Lyndon B. Johnson Lyndon B. Johnson did so many good things for America via. The Great Society legislation and Donald Trump hasn't measured up. I move for a redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson. all of those in favor say aye. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Neigh (whinny). Happy AFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Neiggghhhh- They're both equal in my book. Plus Trump and LBJ think size matters, so there's that...--ZiaLater (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Why isn't Don (honorific) mentioned in the lead sentence? This is a huge oversight that needs to be overlooked immediately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Funny. But PLEASE don't call it an RfC, because that isn't funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I thought about removing that {{rfc}}. But I'm seeing weirder shit than that today, so I'm ok with letting it slide. It can be removed at midnight UTC, in less than 6 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC) what can be removed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) The above "RfC". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC) I guess you're talking about the previous talk page section. I didn't put an RFC template in this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) We're aware of that, and thank you for not doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC) You're welcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC) It's not in the lead because it should be in the hatnote, as a plausible search term people might misinterpret. See WP:HAT#cram in everything possibleSiuenti (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

New lead

Resolved

I'm sure there is now consensus to change the lead. I made a conservative change to look like this

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

This recent and more radically different version also has few objections so far and it could go back to that

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

I don't think anyone should revert back to the version with "incumbent" in the hatnote because there is consensus that these two are better, if you review the discussions and edit history. Siuenti (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The plan seems to be to wait on making changes right now per Ad Orientem. When the thread with his suggested sentence closes, it might be a good idea to let him make the change in the article. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Absent some concrete objection overnight I believe there is a strong consensus in favor of the proposed change to the lead paragraph, and I will make the edit tomorrow. I also would not characterize the change as radical. Nothing is really being added other than incumbent, and nothing is being removed. We are just changing the order in which things are presented so that the item for which Trump is most notable will be named first in a stand alone sentence with the other items following. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'm fine with that version but I believe the order has already been talked about and gained consensus, which may or may not have changed. It's in one of those links about Item 11. Siuenti (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  It seems like in order to make an improvement which has consensus, I have to wait for a particular admin to change the article to his preferred version. Hmm Siuenti (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  It's perfectly normal to give people plenty of time to comment, so they can't come back later and claim the change was made hastily.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  Yes Ad Orientem is delaying an improvement which has consensus so that people can't come back later and say his change was made hastily. Siuenti (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  It's not just his change and his preferred version. A lot of editors have endorsed it above, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  OK his and other people's preferred version. Why can't he make this smaller improvement which we have consensus for now, then change to his and other people's preferred version after people have had long enough to object to that larger change? Siuenti (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New lead: the return

There is going to be a new lead which doesn't have "incumbent" in the hatnote but does have "current" (or maybe "incumbent") in the body. It could be a conservative change like

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

or it could be a more radicalnoticeable change, recently implemented but reverted

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

Which of these is better? Do you strongly object to either of them and why? Is there something else you would much rather have? Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The latter is clearer, but that's version E as discussed above. Why a new thread? — JFG ^talk 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That thread is a bit messy. I'm trying to get clarity on if there is consensus for the bigger change over the smaller change, and if things should be left alone after that. Siuenti (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The latter version is Version E, it's preferable for a variety of reasons, so let's just be patient for a day or so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

American film actor category?

While it certainly is far from being his main thing, he has appeared in enough roles to get his very own page here about it. For comparison, Dubya gets categorized as a painter, which I don't think were a professional occupation of his. 181.115.8.53 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Sounds good. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The Nth Foo of Footopia

Some editors of this page may be interested in the discussion at WikiProject Biography about nth and/or current world leaders. Siuenti (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)