Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

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

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day (per the BRD rule) and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the reverts you're exempting are already exempt per WP:3RRNO anyway as either BLP issues or overt vandalism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph on Inauguration Day

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

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

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

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

Current first paragraph

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

Proposed first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment – @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, ONUnicorn, and Bdushaw: – Please have a look at the two amendments below and comment there if you have an opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've commented on both. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the two suggested revisions: (1) wikilink to Presidency of Donald Trump, per the easier wikilink path to President of the United States than the other way, and (2) "was" rather than "served" per puffery, better NPOV, and shorter. Bdushaw (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal as clear and concise. Trump is mostly known for being president, so that should go first. The rest of his career is adequately summarized by the "Before entering politics" line which has enjoyed a very longstanding consensus. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Meh - it's OK but "was" is better than "served as", and "real estate developer" would be better than "businessman" (more accurate and descriptive). Weak support I guess. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Served as" vs. "was"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devil's advocate alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second alternative proposal for first sentence

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

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

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

Alternative proposal for first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another alternative proposal

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

Or:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new proposal (best proposal yet)

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

---

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

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

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

Light at end of tunnel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American as a descriptive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second interim proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support The most achievable and necessary change is to change the word "is" to "was". We may never have consensus for anything else. All further proposals should remain minimal in nature, like one or two words each time, as we are clearly not able to do anything better than that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Health

In the interest of reducing page size, I suggest we get rid of this section. This section was created because there were concerns about Trump's health when he campaigned for and took the presidency. After discussion, speculation about his mental health was removed from this page. What is left is mostly mundane. Perhaps the Bornstein letter could be mentioned at Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. The fact he caught COVID-19 is already mentioned in the pandemic section. The remaining information gives us no indication that Trump has serious health issues, bearing in mind he is in his 70s. We now know that he lived through the presidency, and as far as we know, apart from the COVID-19 scare, there were no major health emergencies. Also this section is time-bound. It only relates to his presidency. This is rapidly going to be irrelevant. And, no, we don't want this to be a miscellany of every ailment that has afflicted Trump, from bone spurs to COVID-19 and whatever else preys on him in his final years...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. I'm happy to host the content if anybody thinks all or part of it could be used better elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree per the reasons you stated. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. At the moment, it mainly covers his COVID diagnosis, which is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and his exercise habits, which belong under "personal life." User:Kokopelli7309 — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about deleting the entire section. Some of the detail can be seen or placed in a subsidiary article. BUT the central narrative for this artilce must remain that he misrepresented and caused others to misrepresent material facts about his health. Also that Dr. Bornstein reported Trump's thugs forcibly confiscated records against applicable law and without documented authority. I suggest, Jack Upland, that you provide a brief narrative as to the central fact that would replace the longer recitation of details. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep it. It's very short so it doesn't affect the article length, and it has been a subject of intense public interest, and everything in it has been heavily reported. So IMO it is WP:DUE. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this article shouldn't be for partisan grudges against the subject. Issues with health records absolutely do not meet the notability criteria for this particular article, which is an article about somebody who has been a president of the United States for multiple years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't suggest that reasoned arguments (above) arise from "partisan grudges" (whatever that might mean). Also please review WP:N which is not the standard for article content. The applicable policy here is WP:NPOV, which is clearly met. RS tell us Trump went to considerable lengths to mislead the public about an important matter of concern for all US presidents. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In this instance I have to call it out, particularly Dr. Bornstein reported Trump's thugs forcibly confiscated records against applicable law and without documented authority. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I just said that. I called it out. Why are you echoing? SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

An example of partisan sentiments that don't belong here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your terse remarks are unintellegible. Please read the RS reporting on the seizure of Bornstein's records. SPECIFICO talk 06:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not at all "unintellegible". Regardless of the facts, your comment was clearly motivated by opposition to the article's subject, and that doesn't belong here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Read the sources. I have no such opinion. SPECIFICO talk 06:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Every word affects the article length, MelanieN. It's true that there were a lot of reports on this issue and there was even a suggestion Trump could be removed on medical grounds. But what we have here is inconsequential. If Trump was hiding something, we don't know what it is. If and when there is a revelation that during his time in office Trump was suffering from X, we probably would include that. If small-scale changes like this meet so much resistance, then there is no chance to trimming the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is, Jack, that the details might be removed but the central point -- per the WEIGHT of RS discussion of these events, is that Trump went to considerable lengths to conceal and misrepresent matters pertaining to his health. This was noteworthy because US practice has been to disclose such matters as being in the public interest. This is the central problem with this kind of "trim detail" editing. Yes the detail can be placed in a sub-article, but the underlying significance must be preserved. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The weight of reportage was speculative. If you want to place the information in a sub-article, OK, but in regards to this article it is a dead issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack, that's unresponsive and your personal declaration of dismissal is meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see nobody ever brought up Noel Casler in these discussions yet. He knows Trump first-hand and he sounds believable to me. Is there a reason why his comments such as these (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) should be disregarded? Jules TH 16 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, they're not relevant to this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not go by sounds believable to me. Thankfully. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's Wackopedia. Different site.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that this discussion and recent events prove the point made in previous discussions that we can't really cut down the article to a reasonable size until the Trump fever subsides. Editors are continuing to push particular content, regardless of page size, and Trump is continuing to be Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Support I don't know why trump thinking his body is like a battery and which specific drugs he took in the hospital matters at all. The whole section seems extraneous Anon0098 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There is other significant content there. Read comments above. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the section. The health trajectory of a (ex)president is always an important section for a biography. Reducing the size of this article requires a strategic redesign of the article. "Trimming" will never get us there and give ridiculous (embarrassing even) situations like the "Media career" section of this article. Bdushaw (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. If that is the case, should I try to add in all information about Trump's heath from his conception to his putative death and hopefully break the Internet? Do you think that would be fair???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Update to Covid lead wording

In light of the substantial enhancements to the article text since the time we agreed on the lead wording, I proposed an update here. It rids us of the sensitive word "slowly", and it reflects current article text and mainstream narratives. Does anyone oppose this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it, and I oppose it. As you know, the current wording was heavily debated, see consensus #48 above. You would need consensus as well as specific sources to replace the current “reacted slowly” with judgmental language like "negligent and ineffective". By the way, neither of those words appear in the article text, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe many editors have objected to "slowly" on more or less the same grounds. As to procedure, do you think we will need an RfC to change the wording? If so, I will consider wording after comments are received here. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it as well, specifically the inclusion of the word "negligent". I don't think we can use the word "negligent" without suggesting that he has been legally negligent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasoned objection. Can you think of a word that refers to his lack of engagement and obstruction of ameliorative policies without using the word negligent? Recall that the word "slow" has raised a lot of concern from the first time it was proposed. There must be something along the lines of the proposed tweak that addresses both concerns. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to "think of a word". We don't invent text. How are Reliable Sources describing his handling of the situation? We should put that into the article text, and THEN we can use it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s see what Reliable Sources can give us. Here is a source for “slow” and “played down”, as well as “failure”. [3]. Here’s another NYT source, this time for “unsteady, unscientific and colored by politics”, as well as “failure” again.[4] The New England Journal of Medicine described his handling as “dangerously incompetent”.[5]. Scientific American described it as “dangerous and inept”.[6] Any wording here yet that we can use? I didn't see "negligent" or "ineffective" anywhere; maybe one of these other terms, cited to the source? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well,I believe we frequently think of a word that spans the many diverse words in the mainstream to convey the consensus of their meaning. We as editors cant choose one out of all the words except where that word is the mode among the RS writings. Also, while slow, or belated, response was reported, we really should be using recent sources to cover the entire 9+ months. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I think what is needed some positive information to counteract the negative information given about his response to COVID-19, like he reacted slowly at first to the Covid-19 Pandemic but help put together Operation Warp Speed that helped deliver a effective COVID-19 Vaccine by the end of the year. BigRed606 (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no reporting that Operation Warp Speed had any beneficial effect on the development or deployment of the vaccines. Far from it. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Source:https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/trump-covid-vaccine-czar-says-us-should-be-able-to-immunize-nearly-third-of-population-by-end-of-february.html

We can look into including the Moderna info in the body, not Pfizer, not sure about the lede. starship.paint (exalt) 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Trump personally. It might go in the presidency article but so far there is little reporting it speeded or supported anything. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This article in the NY Times today reviewing Trump's pandemic response is relevant to this discussion. It was all about politics, which still needs a bit of development in the article, e.g., the pressures on the states to open early were in the battleground states. Would be in favor of a more general, rather than chronological ("reacted slowly") summary, such as something like "Trump's response to the virus was governed by political, rather than scientific, considerations, resulting in an ineffective, often obstructive, management of the COVID crisis". "Negligent" seems not quite correct - he has been focussed on it, but in a political way. But it likely needs an RfA to change the wording. Bdushaw (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's just think about this. I agree that negligent is somewhat a relative concept -- negligent relative to an expected standard of care. So as MelanieN has pointed out, it may not be the word used in the current weight of RS reports (largely secondary sources, not tertiary). But "slow" is quite ambiguous. It was really intended to mean "late" or delayed, but the fact is that Trump never responded at all to the threat. Although his narratives changed every month or so -- as is his modus operandi for shaping media coverage -- the article text already explains that he adopted a posture of denial and rapidly-shifting, conflicting narratives in a hope that his political prospects would not be derailed. Alternative wording, invoking his, incompetence, ineffectuality, denial, etc. are likely to bother folks as well. But as I have said with respect to other sections of this article, we should not be describing his abdication of duty and promotion of fringe and nonsense messaging as if it were merely a failed effort to deal with the crisis. Those are the scenarious for GW Bush's Iraq War and for Jimmy Carter's travails with Iran or LBJ's in Vietnam. Trump-and-the-virus is not described that way in the mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing the new text as much of an improvement. I would leave the current for now. PackMecEng (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw's suggestion seems like a big step in the right direction to me. Now's obviously not the right time to hash out a new consensus on COVID wording, but I'd like to see this wording revisited soon. I'm not a fan of SPECIFICO's suggestion, negligent doesn't work. The status quo text will have to do until current events die down. Jr8825 • Talk 10:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for "negligent"

Seems to be fairly widespread in recent RS. Note, the "slow" language in article and lead came in the early months, when the full record of Trump's actions was not yet known. Indeeed, the implication that he eventually responded is, per current state of knowledge from RS, an UNDUE minority view, if not WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardoning murderers and Republicans guilty of corruption

I don't know if this article should mention Trump's controversial use of the pardoning power to pardon the convicted murderers of 14 Iraqi civilians and other, it seems to be, solely Republican officials who were convicted of multiple crimes of corruption and money schemes. If it already has, I overlooked it, thanks. Teammm ^talk
_email 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

NOt sure this can be done in a NPOV way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Trump was criticized for issuing presidential pardons for [insert names and crimes here]<references>" --Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We have a section in the article, Donald Trump#Pardons and commutations, and it could be updated with a mention of the more recent round - but only a mention, not an evaluation or criticism. There is a much fuller article, List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump, which goes into more detail about his relationship to the people and mentions criticisms. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Blackwater pardons are already in. Not sure how the Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins pardons (both supported Trump) compare to the already included pardons of pardoned former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who was convicted of taking classified photographs of a submarine, and white-collar criminals Michael Milken, Bernard Kerik, and Edward J. DeBartolo Jr. The pardons will be an enduring part of Trump’s legacy, unlike some of his policies. starship.paint (exalt) 03:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses! Teammm ^talk
_email 22:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Solely Republican" would be incredibly disingenuous. While Rod Blagojevich was not pardoned, he had his sentence commuted Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Long tag

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

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

Are there any objections? – Beg pardon? You know very well there are objections. You have been a participant as this tag has been rejected again and again at this article, as I said in my edit summary,[7] and you don't get another bite at the apple every time a passerby drops in unaware of that fact.[8] I am not going to debate the merits yet again, and I'm asking you to drop this, preferably by self-closing this discussion as "withdrawn". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign policy

@SPECIFICO: Per this edit, what parts did you find excessively removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgia phone call

I added the following to the 2020 presidential election section:

In a phone call January 2, Trump pressured Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state's result, telling him "I just want to find 11,780 votes" and threatening him with legal action if he did not cooperate.

References

I also made a small edit to the last sentence of the lede along similar lines, changing mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to the results to pressured government officials and mounted a series of unsuccessful legal challenges to try to overturn the results.

These remained for about 45 min. before being reverted by Onetwothreeip, who asserted Too much detail for this article, WP:10YEARTEST. Recognizing that there is (rightly) a high bar for inclusion on this page, I think that this phone call meets it. Reliable sources are treating it with their highest level of bombshell coverage—WaPo used "extraordinary" in its headline, a word they don't invoke lightly in the context of Trump, and other outlets are reacting similarly. It also expands our understanding of Trump's reaction to the election in a way that is likely to be of enduring historical significance, by making it clear that he attempted to overturn the result not just through legal challenges but through an extralegal pressure campaign on government functionaries. Given this, I believe the change should be reinstated. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are many, many Donald Trump events which have received the highest levels of coverage. This could be covered on Wikipedia, but not at this article. In ten years time, somebody reading this article who knows all about the Trump presidency wouldn't be surprised or astonished that this phone call wasn't included in the article. We already have plenty about his attempts at denying and overturning the results of the election without getting into such specific events. If this ends up being something that actually does come to define the Trump presidency in the view of history then we can change our minds and include it in the article, but otherwise we are jumping at shadows here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is obviously noteworthy and must be included for exactly the reasons you mention. This is, and will be, biographically significant (notwithstanding the fact that the effort by Trump is futile). As you note, WaPo described the call as "extraordinary" and other sources describe it similarly, e.g.,

• NY Times ("remarkable act by a defeated president to crash through legal and ethical boundaries as he seeks to remain in power.")
• Associated Press: "unprecedented effort by a sitting president to pressure a state official to reverse the outcome of a free and fair election that he lost"
• Wall Street Journal ("the extraordinary conversation of a sitting president pressuring a state elections official to overturn election result").
• The Guardian ("widespread outrage including calls for a second impeachment")

It borders on frivolous to say that this should be omitted. Neutrality^talk 04:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything Trump does is remarkable, extraordinary, unprecedented, and so on. If this is still in the news cycle after a few days, we can include it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We go by the RS coverage, evaluating its extent, quality, and depth. An artificial time lag simply does not play a role in content decisions. Neutrality^talk 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed with Neutrality that an artificial lag is ill-advised. For an article of this visibility, WP:The deadline is now. If this discussion trends toward inclusion, I would urge editors to act on the prevailing consensus sooner rather than later. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be an artificial lag. Anyway, the reliable sources don't indicate this is any more important than the myriad of other bombshells to come from Donald Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Give it a day or two and see what happens WP:NORUSH. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• In favour of the change. Direct pressure on state officials is one of several avenues Trump has pursued, and not just this recent Georgia phone call. These actions are all extraordinary and unprecedented in the US democratic system; the lead should reflect the breadth of pressure Trump has attempted. I noted today there is a lot more use of the word "coup" in recent commentary. (I will take this opportunity to reiterate that many of the "series of legal challenges" were by Trump allies in the various states, rather than Trump himself, and "series" implies a system of some kind. How about "Trump and his allies mounted over 80(?) legal challenges in several states"?) Bdushaw (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm in the "wait until Thursday" camp for this article; the day-by-day edits can be at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. We already say He personally communicated with various Republican local officials, state legislators, state attorneys general, a state governor, and federal legislators for help in overturning their election results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yep not sure we need a blow by blow account, just say "He personally communicated with various Republican local officials, state legislators, state attorneys general, a state governor, and federal legislators for help in overturning their election results" but add "including legal threats".Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion (reworded) - Trump's call is on the front page of every national newspaper in America, and features prominently on the websites of almost every major news organization in the world. Legal analysts have said this is a crime under Georgia State Law, and it has brought about consternation from politicians on both sides of the aisle. It passes every conceivable test for relevance and weight, so it must be included in some form. With that said, I believe the wording needs to be rephrased so that it is not in wikivoice. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• One day at the top of the headlines is not a high bar for inclusion in a one-page account of an entire life. Revisit after at least two weeks – a good practice in general – when it will be abundantly clear that this was merely another installment in a protracted campaign of inconsequential posturing that could be summarized in two or three average-length sentences.
  Another good practice would be to (1) make sure WP:SYNC is satisfied before adding something here (or proposing the addition of something here), and (2) note the child article in the edit summary or proposal. A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for the content to be challenged in the child article before any action here. I know it's more complication where things definitely don't need more complication, but it's really the only way to make and implement the point that this article should not be the first place editors think of when they want to propose content based on daily headlines. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  RS tell us this is direct evidence of Trump committing state and federal crimes, not ho-hum. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Feel free to try to actually make that case, but simply saying it with conviction doesn't make it true. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong, but this NYT article merely refers to various people voicing opinions on both sides of that question. That is not "RS telling us" anything but that it's a matter of public controversy. Please evaluate RS with more objectivity. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone who's read the past 24 hours coverage knows it is correct. Please survey the sources. You should not toss aspersions about objectivity. That too is verified consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Nope, that is not how it works. The burden is on you to make your case, not merely make unsubstantiated statements about RS and demand that others go see for themselves. With reference to a single source that spectacularly fails to support your RS claim, which I was not required to make, I've already gone farther than you have. It ain't "aspersion" if it's supported by evidence, but I invite you to test that theory in a more public venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I presume you have already read the refernces provided by OP and by @Neutrality: above. I suggest you also read the additional WaPo coverage some of which is linked here. DUE WEIGHT is amply established. Please also note, nobody has suggested the article call his actions a a crime. No need to discuss that at this time. Your suggestion that the given sources do not meet the ONUS for inclusion is unintelligible. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, there is nothing here that can't wait a couple of weeks for perspective. It's ever so painful, but I'll just have to suffer the loss of respect and trust from 108.30.187.155 and any others who can't wait that long to get this bombshell information into this biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If, when and if he is prosecuted we can say it was illegal, and that it is worthy of inclusion. Right now it's just more noise.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Leave it out. For goodness sake, it's not going to overturn the prez election results & so it's of little importance. Do we honestly think this is the only phone call he made to any state? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• There were two questions posted: (1) whether to include the Georgia phone call in the 2020 presidential election section, and (2) whether to include pressuring government officials in the lead. I am in favour of both of these, as I noted above. The Georgia phone call is a new event - I think it is important enough for inclusion, but waiting a few days for the story to shake out has merit. But the article text already supports the addition of "pressured government officials and " to the lead, irrespective of the Georgia phone call. Having the president of the United States call up a governor or secretary of state to apply pressure to overturn an election as Trump has done is certainly important enough for the lead. Bdushaw (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• OBVIOUS SUPPORT It is blindingly obvious that the Georgia call is notable enough to include (and, yes, in the article lead). Some of you have got to be kidding. "Will this still be in the news cycle..." etc. My God, this is far bigger than Watergate (we could reliably source that claim, too, if you'd like.) I would go so far as to question the good faith of any editors who say this is not notable enough for inclusion. Indeed, Trump may very well spend the rest of his cushy life in maximum security prison, if he does not find some very good lawyers (i.e. not Rudy Giuliani.) Trump: Requests that Georgia government officials end the United State's 300 year tradition of Democracy and install him as King. Wikipedia Editors: "I don't see what's notable about this. NOTNEWS. Grumble grumble" 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Trump–Raffensperger scandal is obviously extremely noteworthy and must be included at once. There are already very strong calls for a second impeachment and/or criminal proceedings. As Carl Bernstein noted, this alone is "far worse than Watergate,"[9] and we wouldn't omit Watergate, would we? I also support inclusion in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein's catchphrase is "worse than watergate" he says that about everything [10][11] [12]. I wouldn't exactly use that coming from him as evidence for inclusion. On the contrary, it's just another scandal everyone will forget about in exactly 24 hours, after the runoff election Anon0098 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Bernstein is a broken record. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as explained above. Give it time to see if it holds the public's attention for more than a week Anon0098 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - If this happened with any other president, it would be headline news. We've just become so desensitized to Trump that there's debate on whether or not to include an attempt to literally be the Richard Daley & LBJ of 2020 (at least Nixon didn't contest it). Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have loved to see some of you after the Pearl Harbor bombing or 9/11. “Give this a day or two, let’s see if it’s still in the news...” let me break it down very slowly for you: we just had an active sitting president illegally attempt to intimidate a government official into “finding” votes that did not exist, overturning America’s 300-year old tradition of democracy, and turning the US into a despotic dictatorship. This is literally an attempt to overthrow the US government from within and some of you are throwing around “not news.” I truly have to wonder if some of you are serious because your position on this is incredible. I cannot fathom how some of you do not think this is encylopedic information. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Disclaimer: Some people might think this above is me signed out, it is not. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support Per the comment above directly, and as everyone else has explained, this is essential to include both in the article and the header. I know it's easy to get desensitized to Trump's near countless unethical actions, but this is especially egregious.Jonmaxras (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it though? PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, a sitting president attempting to undermine an election for political gain by intimidating a public official is exceptionally significant. If you're going to respond to a differing opinion, at least engage in an actual conversation. I do not appreciate the sardonic response. Jonmaxras (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But is it really though? I don't know man. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see no reason this discussion can't wait a couple of weeks for perspective. There is no urgency to publish NOW, particularly at a biography. I am never convinced by (or impressed by) non-argument words like "obvious" and "essential" – let alone remarkably irrational comparisons to (1) the attack that cost 2,403 American lives and sparked the United States entry into World War II and (2) the deadliest terrorist attacks the world has ever seen, killing 2,977. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  So, you reject overwhelming RS offered to you, as one of the lone dissenters, showing the gravity of their assessment and reporting. Then you promote your personal subjective views about 9-11 and Pearl Harbor being somehow different. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. Deal with it. Anyway, I said nothing about strength of RS in my formal !vote, which came long after my previous comments in this thread. The point of my !vote is that discussion about this can and should wait a couple of weeks, including discussion about strength of RS. Sorry if it took a day for my thinking to crystallize. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's no deadline, no need to apologize. The problem was only that your thinking was not based on poliy and sources. Thanks. By the time we work out text, you will likely have your two weeks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  You still miss my point, which is not to defer only the content but also the discussion. Better off thinking about something else for two weeks and then taking a fresh look at this, and there is no shortage of other things to think about. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh no, I don't miss that at all. I agree completely. That's also why I have skipped most of this page the past three months. Unfortunately, though, once it's raised we can not always wait and ignore. I've long been anti-recent, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't follow your reasoning. We absolutely can wait if we form a consensus to wait (which of course needn't be unanimous), but the prospects for such a consensus drop from less-than-likely to zero if people like you and me say we can't and don't support it. Anyway I do not propose to ignore but to defer discussion. For two weeks. I think that's very different from ignore. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support this one-sentence summary of the whole article at Trump–Raffensperger scandal‎. -- Valjean (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I've revised this section here and there for hopefully better grammar and organization. In the last paragraph the phrase referring to this Georgia incident is out of place, but the issue is contentious so I leave it alone. It is notable that the Georgia phone call occurred after the electoral college vote (a few days before Congress meets to count those votes) - the article presently does not indicate that, which bugs me. We wait for consensus, however. Bdushaw (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  You don't need prior consensus to improve the text. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes...but I am not going to touch it... :) More to the point, I have my own idea what should be there, but there is no consensus about it yet. So that's why I leave it alone. Bdushaw (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  The content is known to be disputed per comments in this thread, so we do in fact need prior consensus. Anyone who needs this demonstrated may add it and I will immediately revert per BRD – and we'll be right back here seeking a consensus. By definition, a BOLD edit has not yet been disputed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"irresponsible sulking"

The 2020 campaign section presently has the phrase "irresponsible sulking". That seems a little odd for an encyclopedia, true though it may be. I am wondering if this could not be replaced by something like how he obsessed over the election results and attempts to overturn it, while abandoning his presidential duties such as managing the rampaging COVID pandemic. I don't know enough about the RS to support that theme, but I think that's true. Would be more substantive than "sulking". (I just hesitantly removed the sentence in that section on the Giuliani allegations, which seemed redundant. Would not object to its return, as loopy as the allegations are. The various sentences/paragraphs seemed a little disjointed to me, hence the better (?) reorganization.) While I am here, I'll note also the recent Biden complaints that the DoD was not cooperating in the transition...one reason for including things as they happen is how rapidly the situation moves from one outrageous thing to another. Bdushaw (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's used as a quote though, so is appropriate. The title of the source is "Trump's monumental sulk: president retreats from public eye as Covid ravages US" Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If its a quote fine, we just can't say its a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't say it is wrong or inappropriate - merely suggesting that it is a poor choice of how to frame the situation. Better to convey the information that he abrogated his responsibilities, while pursuing/obsessing election issues than to give a word like "sulking". Bdushaw (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the exact context is that the phrase is enclosed in quotation marks, and the source is applied directly after it. It's eminently clear that this is a quote taken from a source, not synthesis or opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Coup d'etat attempt

Mr. Mandruss has reverted my well-sourced addition of "attempted coup" with a stern, gratuitous, and equivocal reprimand that I myself had opposed such context in the past.

Needless to say, the difference is that with the redoubling of POTUS' efforts and the passage of time, this has now achieved DUE WEIGHT in mainstream coverage -- as evidenced by the provided Washington Post source. Needless to remind Mr. Mandruss that Consensus can change.

Soliciting agree or disagree from other editors concerning the sentence I added? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a formal RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m uncomfortable with the term at this point, even though his efforts appear to comprise attempts to override an election by unconstitutional means – which is to say, seize power. Now, we’ll see if he attempts to foment violence among his supporters today. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Mr. SPECIFICO's defensiveness aside, I don't see enough RS change to warrant revisiting this, and the existing consensus is sufficient. And I certainly do not need reminding about WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What changed my mind was that Washington Post reference [13] that surveys RS using the term "coup". I think it is now the mainstream description, after all plausible legal avenues have been exhausted. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Mr. SPECIFICO, a process point: The way to propose revisitation of an existing consensus is not to edit against it. I'm sorry-not-sorry if that's too stern, gratuitous, and equivocal for your delicate sensibilities. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC) No, Bold is good. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC) That statement is in direct conflict with the NOTE at the top of Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, which also applies to consensuses not listed there. That note has remained unchanged for four years, it has been supported by several admins and challenged by none, and we have routinely reverted edits against consensus for the same four years. By all means point to one or two cases where an existing consensus has been challenged by other editors via a BOLD edit. You can't, you know it, and you haven't a solitary leg to stand on on this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Take it elsewhere, please. Maybe Village Pump. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC) No, it doesn't work that way. When someone violates standard and long-standing process at this article, we handle it at this article. We don't go to Village Pump and ask the community if it's ok to adhere to this article's standard and long-standing process; that would be absurd. On the other hand, if you want to go to Village Pump and ask whether this article's standard and long-standing process is legitimate, feel free to do so and you will be advised that it most certainly is legitimate (I wonder why you never do that?). I'll now collapse this side discussion since it's becoming disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens today at the Capitol first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So is it too early to say Coup yet?Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid some of you who have been screaming coup for two months will see what a coup attempt really is today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be confusing because readers might think we were using the term literally. TFD (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, my comfort level with the word is increasing. Let's see what the news says tomorrow. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just reading today's news and came here to post a "Coup revisited" inquiry. We do need to wait a day or two for some settlement of events, but when mobs break into the Capital to stop Electoral College vote proceedings, after incessant Trump instigations...I believe "coup" is the word. We'll need a number of reliable sources to use the word, but I believe they will appear in coming days, if not already available. (One can almost also talk of a "coup" in Georgia, with all the rhetoric of "fixing" the vote count.) I wrote against the word before, but the situation has done its predictable but shocking evolution. Bdushaw (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Whatever way one chooses to look at this, inciting supporters to storm and disrupt a building dedicated to a country’s democratic process, while that democratic process is in session, is an attempted Coup d'etat. What else other than the restoration of Trump were these revolutionaries seeking? It’s unbelievable, but seems to be true. Giano (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both sides protest and both sides accuse the other of treason. It's as old as the Republic. TFD (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming the seat of democratic power is not as old as the “Republic.” It’s something that happens in tin pot banana republics. One hopes to see more civilised behaviour in the Land of the Free. The clue to that freedom is democracy, not billionaires inciting ignorant masses to revolution. Giano (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

See article from lasdt year: "Coronavirus: Armed protesters enter Michigan statehouse". TFD (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the coup attempt needs to be in the first paragraph of the lead and the body. It has been called that by an abundance of RS for two months now, it was called a coup attempt by Charles Schumer in the senate today, everyone but the fringe far-right recognises it as a coup attempt. There is no valid, policy-based reason not to include it, it would be like insisting that we shouldn't mention 11 September 2001 until a year had passed or something absurd like that. Had this happened in Ukraine or an African or Asian country, and been as widely described as a coup attempt by RS (and by some of the most senior politicians in the country in question), it would be included in all relevant articles a long time ago (while senior senators like Schumer describe Trump's coup attempt as a coup attempt, Trump himself said on Twitter today that the US election system "is worse than that of third world countries"; Biden just said that "our democracy is under unprecedented assault" and talked about sedition going on). --Tataral (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stick to RS and leave personal opinions out of it, please. Here is one small look at mainstream RS. The current NYT headline is: MOB STORMS CAPITOL, INFLAMED BY ANGRY TRUMP SPEECH. Not MOB STORMS CAPITOL IN COUP ATTEMPT, INFLAMED BY ANGRY TRUMP SPEECH. Looking inside that article, the word "coup" occurs exactly once, quoting a GOP representative with no NYT endorsement of the word. Big deal. If that's typical MSM coverage, it falls far short of Wikipedia's requirements. I will await examples of stronger RS support for the word, but I doubt MSM varies that much from NYT's coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

First, please address the RS tertiary summary of RS secondary narratives of "coup attempt" in the text that you have reverted. That text was not about today's events. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Could folks please stop offering Original Research as to the events of Jan 6 and focus on the RS that have called it a coup attempt over the past month or so since we first deferred considering this. The reference provided above provides a summary of the top RS calling it a coup attempt before today. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've opposed "coup" language twice here already. I see no reason to re-visit that discussion while ignoring the issues of today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We need sources that describe the events as being widely considered as a coup. It's not enough to find sources that call it a coup, and then claim that this is something widely considered, which would be original research. For now, there is not enough here to say that Donald Trump is attempting a coup. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The WaPo source I provided states that it is widely considered a "coup attempt", and itcites the sources it bases that on. Please read it. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Speaking humorously HERE is what a proper coup d'etat looks like.) I've noted that Trump has not offered any condemnations yet...he's pretty good at skirting the boundaries of calling a spade a spade. Bdushaw (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Numerous RS (CNN, BBC, Guardian etc.) explicity use "coup attempt" and also explicitly say that it is on Trump's encouragement. It definitely belongs in the first paragraph; Trump is one of 46 presidents, but the only one who encouraged a coup. Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now read the WaPo piece provided by SPECIFICO, and I find it less compelling. A number of historians, academics, and others are cited as saying Trump's actions are not a coup attempt or not "technically" a coup attempt. That makes the word problematic at best for Wikipedia's purposes. But, on the basis of what I see there, I will support one sentence in the body, something like "Some academics, media pundits, and news outlets described his actions as an attempted coup d'etat, and others disputed the use of that term." I oppose anything like SPECIFICO's language, and anything in the lead. I strongly oppose anything in the first paragraph, and I think we have wide agreement that that kind of content does not belong in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, any attempt to remove the description as a coup from the article should be reverted on sight at this point. We have long had a significant problem with how the portrayal of Trump in this article whitewashes the far right, an ongoing problem. The lead, and particularly its first paragraph, is ridiculously biased in portraying Trump as a normal democratic politician rather than the far-right authoritarian figure he's universally perceived as by reliable sources. We don't portray far-right authoritarian leaders involved in coup attempts (whether by military or "legal" means) from any other countries in such a manner. --Tataral (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Disparagement, snark
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mandruss, you indicated that you hid my comment above solely as an exercise in WP:POINT (or a "game" as you called it) in retaliation against User:SPECIFICO for hatting your irrelevant comment above.[14]. (I wouldn't personally have hatted your comment). You may not touch my comment, which commented solely upon the content of this article, because you disagree with it. I stand by my comment, which is appropriate and on-topic. I caution you against such behaviour. --Tataral (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

For the word "coup", the case could certainly be made - he had motive, means, and opportunity; he even set up the means and set up the opportunity. You will never convince me that Trump did not hope that something like this today would occur, perhaps successful for him. Trump acts in "yes, but no, maybe it is (really yes)" kinds of ways - recall the "do me a favor though". All that being said, I suspect the RSs will likely avoid the word, per Mandruss. It seems a lot like the word "lie" - too incendiary to be flung about. We will see what the reporting in the coming weeks says about the situation, or whether Trump incurs more than usual condemnation. The word "insurrection" is used more concretely, which may perhaps be a compromise to "coup". I was reading this article on how the world was viewing the events of the day. All and all pretty horrible; a dark day indeed in US history. No one should ignore the fact that Trump was its root cause. Bdushaw (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bdushaw, what is your assessment of the cited WaPo source? Let's no discuss today. Just the RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen that citation, but alas, I have only occasional access to WaPo articles. From what I've read above, I have a good idea of what the article contains (not the same as reading it). Without the events such as today's, I still think it hard to use the word "coup" wikipedia fashion; I've done the usual google searches. One way to look at it, would be that if there were an actual coup attempt established, people would be arrested. Can there be an established "coup attempt" without anyone being arrested? So the best one could hope for is the weasel word "critics say..." We do not use the words "lie" or "demagogue" though both are blatantly obvious. Today was different though; a line was crossed; a lady was killed. Trump was apparently repeatedly urged, by everyone, to condemn the insurrection and just as repeatedly did not do so. Bdushaw (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have not read that source, which is the sole basis to reopen the issue, you should not be commenting and certainly not opening up your OR analysis. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As noted, I have made good faith surveys/searches in support of "coup". Came up mostly empty. Not really OR analysis - I describe a process by which material is selected to form the article (per "lie" and "demagogue"); what I was looking for as justifying the word "coup" in the article. Bdushaw (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Even this article today Democrats, Republicans blame Trump for inciting 'coup' as mob storms Capitol (which I can read) falls short of using "coup" in the article, other than "critics say...", or even "bipartisan members of congress described/accused..." Its a word that has a high bar, IMO. (The article describes members filing articles of impeachment...if that were to occur (!!!), "coup" may well be appropriate! e.g., "impeached for attempting to instigate a defacto coup") Bdushaw (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You really need to stick to the very narrow question of this thread. A single sentence and source, not the other sources you read, and not your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose OK, then...I've reviewed the specific text, though I still cannot access the cited source. The text is vague (need to say who is describing) and one citation, not substantially supported by others, does not justify a strong word like "coup". Bdushaw (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Because you have not read the RS, your oppose is meaningless in addition to false. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

At no time did the military try to overthrow the US government. There was no attempted coup. Now calm down folk. The US House & US Senate have re-convene their duties under the 12th amendment. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Point of order

WTF is going on here? Have you all forgotten what we do here? In a sense, the "truth" is not important here. It is what "verifiable sources say" that matters. It makes no difference whether Trump has attempted a coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. What matters to us is that many RS have described these events as an attempted coup/self-coup/bloodless coup. That's what we document:

The disputed edit: His actions were widely described as an "attempted coup d'etat.

That is a very properly-worded documentation of the opinions in many RS (not a statement that it IS a coup), so it is proper to include it. -- Valjean (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The military at no time attempted to overthrow the US government. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes no difference. We document what RS say, often NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER MIGHT BE. That's policy. We priotize "verifiability, not truth". We have a whole section about this here: Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Description_as_an_attempted_coup. -- Valjean (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wish you'd stop for a sec, so I can avoid the edit-conflicts. The topic we're discussing belongs on the article you've linked to. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is dealt with in-depth there. We're only talking about a one-sentence mention here. That's all. The subject has enough due weight for that short a mention here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The truth of the matter is that many RS have described these events as an attempted coup/soft coup/bloodless coup (the latter two require no military intervention). Whether it actually happens is of secondary importance at the present time. -- Valjean (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  For one thing, I've yet to see much RS that calls it coup attempt in their own voices, but there is a lot that quote people who call it a coup attempt. As noted above, they also quote people who say it was not a coup attempt or was not "technically" a coup attempt. If you're going to issue lectures about compliance with RS, perhaps you could be less selective with your compliance. If we were to say that many have called it a coup attempt, we would also have to say that many have disputed the term – per your own reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, but we're only talking about a one-sentence mention of what fills this whole section in the other article (Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Description_as_an_attempted_coup). No one is proposing a large addition here. The subject has enough due weight for that short a mention here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't said anything about a large addition. One sentence in the body could convey what I said above, and in fact I provided an example of such a sentence previously. The point is that you can't report one side of what RS is saying, ignore the other side, and claim that you're complying with RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Mandruss, which is why I replied "of course". I was agreeing with that exact point. I have never addressed more wording, but your point is well taken and I would never oppose the understanding that NPOV does include the idea of telling both sides of the story, but there are situations where it isn't obviously necessary.

The question here is how much we want to delve into the subject HERE when WP:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies (yes, an essay, but one which prevents ridiculous additions of denials where unnecessary), IOW it might be pretty silly to add more. It really depends on how we word the mention. The proposed "were widely described" could be modified to say "described by some as", and that would obviate any need for any mention of a "duh" denial. My main point is that we don't need to go in-depth here. I wanted to counter the fears of some that there was any attempt to do more, which fears made them throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting any mention at all (that includes yours and GoodDay's oppose votes below). A total rejection also violates NPOV. This is something we can civilly discuss and come up with a satisfactory wording without total rejection of any inclusion. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out. Just because the MSM likes to go overboard for drama ratings, doesn't mean we should. CNN reporters saying "The Republic hung by a thread" or "Democracy is threatened"? PS - Are we gonna hear Carl Bernstein tell us that "This is worst then Watergate", again? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Saying "described by some as" is NOT the same as "described by some as while others disagreed". I am saying we should say the latter or nothing. You pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with that wording. -- Valjean (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Awesome. Thrilled we could reach agreement. Then your !vote below needs updating, since it clearly refers to SPECIFICO's original language. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of proposed edit. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Include the one-sentence mention. That's all that we need here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any one-sided statement about coup attempt per my comments here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Include per Valjean, and because my neck is just not long enough to burrow my eyes subterranean level these days. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's too early to tell how widespread the term's use is/will be. "Coup" has partly been used in a knee-jerk manner to describe the confusing and dramatic nature of events and express disgust at events, rather than as a technical term (a reporter in the NYT writes: "the words used to describe it were ... alarming: Coup. Insurrection. Sedition."). "Coup" is definitely widespread among RS, but generally being used by opinion/commentary/analysis sections (e.g. The Atlantic's 'ideas' section) rather than in a descriptive sense within news reporting – basically I don't see the kind of unanimous usage that would justify rushing for its inclusion. Let's see wait to see how the RS describe it once the dust has settled. Perhaps "attempted coup" will gain ground or "mob" will remain the most common term (e.g. FT, NYT). Jr8825 • Talk 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Include for two months RS have been saying this is an attempted coup.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Include for reasons previously stated. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - coup is not in widespread use by RS. (It only "counts" if it's in the sources own voice, and not opinion.) Also fwiw oppose putting this in the first paragraph of the lead. In the lead, yes, but not first paragraph. It's too soon to say where this event will rank compared to other trump-related events. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wow! No one is proposing "putting this in the first paragraph of the lead" or "first paragraph". Look at the location, far down in the article, where the edit was made. -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up: It definitely belongs in the first paragraph. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There continue to be editors who are confusing 1) the WaPo sourced statement about how RS are describing Trump's actions -- a nice tertiary summary that references several RS secondary sources -- with 2) Descriptions of the storming of the Capitol yesterday, either per sources or editor OR. @GoodDay, Bdushaw, Jr8825, and Levivich:. Could those pinged please review the sentence and review the cited WaPo source and verify/justify their views so we can wrap this up. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've already read the WAPOST source & it's full of opinions. Give an example of what I'm getting at. In these last few hours (like other times over the 4 years) CNN & The Young Turks (for example) having been bringing up the 25th amendment (they never tell their audience pacifically Section 4 of that amendment) & telling their viewers that it removes a president from office. Problem is, that's not what happens. Section 4 of the 25th amendment strips the president of his powers and duties & bestows it on the vice president. You see, MSM can make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the cited WaPo source and it said:

Historians described Trump’s actions as dangerous, irresponsible, harmful and unprecedented, but most said his behavior does not yet meet the formal academic definition of an attempted coup, which typically describes a military-backed effort to seize power from a legitimate government. Senior Pentagon officials have made clear that the military has no role in the fallout over Trump's election defeat ... Some said he is tiptoeing toward an "autogolpe," a Spanish term popularized in Latin America to describe a "self-coup" attempted by leaders who came to power legally and acted outside the law to try to maintain it. "In technical terms, it’s probably not a coup. But it is an illegal and authoritarian attempt to stay in power," said political scientist Steven Levitsky ... "If this were a coup attempt, it’s perhaps the most bungled way to go about that I could imagine," [research coordinator at the Institute for Politics and Strategy] Chin said ... "The reason I don’t want to call it a coup is that it shifts the attention to the military," said Singh, the author of "Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups." ... "This is more of a textbook case of democratic backsliding, which is less sexy of a term," said Erica De Bruin, an assistant professor at Hamilton College and author of "How to Prevent Coups d'État."

No, we shouldn't say it was widely described as a coup citing to this WaPo source, because the WaPo source doesn't support it. If anything, political scientists and historians agree it wasn't a coup attempt, because the military wasn't involved. This was widely described as a riot by a mob of Trump supporters. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I finally got access to the citation in question. I would say that either we omit "coup", or we spend a lengthy paragraph describing all the facets - as I've mentioned before, explaining Trump takes words upon words. As I've also mentioned, I have made determined searches before for citations supporting "coup" and found them lacking. I personally believe he is attempting a coup, but RSs are not so clear. Since we are ever admonished to shorten the article, I come down again (referring prior to yesterday's events) against using the word. We worked through why we don't use the word "lie" though Trump lies like nobody's business, similarly demagogue has gone through those same sorts of arguments - they seem to me to apply here as well. Besides, as the citation notes, he's already in power, but wants to stay in power - that is not technically a coup. I might rephrase your RfA: should this article include a substantive paragraph(s) describing the various facets of how Trump's actions are or are not a coup? I doubt there would be support for that, but maybe; we did a similar exercise regarding "lie", which I think turned out well and has remained. Could develop a theme how his actions now threatened the long tradition of peaceful transitions of power. (Lot's of support for "insurrection" in regards to yesterday's events. Also much clearer today that Trump incited the events of yesterday, and was pretty much psychotically gleeful about it afterward, refusing to condemn the perpetrators; the cause of the various resignations. Awful.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As Levivich pointed out, a proper reading of that WaPo article reveals a story about a bunch of political commentators and journalists calling this a coup attempt, while actual researchers and experts in coups all say it's not a coup. In any case, newspaper articles from just days after the event are really not an ideal source for this kind of thing. This is a really bad edit [15]. Presenting "both sides" when one side is experts in the field and the other is not is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the Capitol

• Interim action taken. There's clearly some discussion needed to hammer out the exact language to be used, but it's indisputable that an event of the magnitude of rioters breaching the U.S. Capitol Building (the first such instance since 1812) warrants mention here. I have taken the language currently on the In the News section of the main page, Pro-Trump rioters storm the US Capitol Building (pictured), disrupting certification of the presidential election and forcing Congress to evacuate., and copied that as closely as possibly. In the "2020 presidential election" section, immediately after Trump allies in Congress indicated they would object to the congressional certification of the results on January 6, 2021, I added the sentence, On that day, pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol Building, disrupting certification of the presidential election and forcing Congress to evacuate. I hope that this is a reasonable interim state for the page to have; per WP:NOW, it would grossly inappropriate to wait. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• A key missing element from this (heroic) summary is that the mob was incited by Trump, per NY Times headline just now. Trump as the root cause is appropriate for this biography of him. Bdushaw (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Demonstrators who broke into the Capitol building while Congress was in session," aka the "Beer belly Rebellion." It will make a great Trivial Pursuit question in the years ahead, but is of little historical interest. The main significance is the failure of D.C. security, but that belongs in other articles. Let's wait 2 days to see if U.S. democracy has survived. If we wake up Friday and find all the MSNBC hosts have been replaced by grim-faced soldiers, it will be time to consider adding it to the article. TFD (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, right, so Wikipedia must wait for it to be LITERAL and SUCCESSFUL coup before mentioning it? Brilliant. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• As a result of President Trump's inflammatory post Capitol storming tweets, twitter suspended his account and threatened permanent suspension for future transgressions of their Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies.[16] Cryellow (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Repeatedly, there has been significant editor support for a brief wait for perspective, and the content was added anyway with no better basis than two impossibly vague words – "vital content" – in an essay that is otherwise about removing misinformation and lacks widespread community support. Not wishing to seem disruptive, and preferring to work things out in talk, I have refrained from challenging those edits by reversion. I'm afraid that might have to change if this continues. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Headlines, front page, in big letters:

• Wall Street Journal: MOB STORMS CAPITAL
• New York Times: TRUMP INCITES MOB
• Washington Post: Trump mob storms Capitol

• So, yeah, add it, it's no-brainer, hand-wringing to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is likely very relevant to add that at least four people have died due to this incident:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/07/congress-riots-senate-georgia-result-donald-trump-capitol-latest/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/capitol-riots-death-toll-trump-supporters-killed-b1783645.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html

--Redgon (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't it an important consideration that the riot/storming/incident was as a direct result of Trump's tweet inciting followers to do just that? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree. --Redgon (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• The horned one was enthroned in the Capitol. That has universal significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

lame duck

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.

---

I don't want to get drawn into an edit War here. I saw that someone removed lame duck regarding Trump's presidency. I didn't simply revert it. I changed it and linked the Wikipedia page that defines what a lame duck is and I put back the word "current ". Clearly, Donald Trump is a lame duck president. He is currently the president and he is a lame duck. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not once but twice, you ignored the prominent hidden comment at the end of the paragraph: "DO NOT CHANGE the first paragraph without prior consensus; see Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17." The first paragraph is already under discussion elsewhere on this page and has been since 19 December. Therefore I'm closing this thread as duplicate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

@Mandruss: Could you please include a helpful link in your close to where people should discuss this? There have been several reverts related to this, and I don't see anywhere else on this page where people are discussing the "lame duck" or "outgoing" thing. Maybe instead of closing this you can move it to be a subsection of the broader first paragraph discussion you mentioned. ~Awilley (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: At #Second interim proposal we are seeking a consensus for a "bare minimum" change to the first paragraph to be made on Inauguration Day. That should be our first priority, being a rare situation when there is in fact a deadline. Very low on the priority list would be something that would distract from that effort, would take at least a week to gain consensus (maybe even longer since it's in the ever-controversial first paragraph), and would be gone on the 20th anyway. Do you still feel this is something that needs to be left open? If so, I'll take care of it in deference to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

He is by definition a lame duck president, and, at the very least, the history of this article should show that we did include that fact in the article for as long as it was the case. The inclusion can be done quickly if no one prevents it, and since there is no policy-based argument for not including it, let's do it. (RS exist.) -- Valjean (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We didn't add it for Bush in 2009 or Obama in 2017. Why add it for Trump? He's leaving office in 12 days, so why bother. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: The policy-based argument for not including it is WP:CONSENSUS. Content covered by a consensus cannot be changed without a new consensus. The first paragraph is covered by Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus #17. So adding this without a new consensus for it would be a clear violation of policy and would earn you a visit to AE. Now, if you insist on wasting our precious time seeking a consensus for something that will be in the article for a few days – because of some half-baked, idiosyncratic "principle" about what "the history of this article should show", then do your worst. I will strongly oppose your proposal, and I don't need to cite any policy to justify my opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Alright, I was out of line there – I've had a sucky day and it's showing – and I would just remove that if I hadn't pinged you with it. I see now that you weren't suggesting we bypass consensus rules but were seeking a consensus. I oppose adding this for a matter of a few days without better justification than you have provided. All outgoing presidents are lame ducks after the election, so it's obvious and unnecessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, but too little too late. I feel with Davey2010. I won't leave Wikipedia, but this article is a walled garden that is tightly guarded by a "consensus" wall that is being used as a trump card to preclude even the most obviously simple, policy-based edits. All other policies are irrelevant in this atmosphere. Consensus blocks their application. This is the type of situation where IAR should apply, but I won't bother. I'm not ambitious or combative enough. I have better things to do than try to improve this article. I'll keep watching, but don't expect much from me. -- Valjean (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Attack vs mayhem

Re: [17]

Contrary to SPEICFICO's assertion, "mayhem" is in fact used in sources, including NYT today. Until earlier today, it was the word they chose for use in their top headline, and the word "attack" has never been seen there to my knowledge. While "attack" has also been seen in sources, that does not make it superior to "mayhem" is terms of RS, which is what SPECIFICO claims.

Given the above, we can now indulge in what some call original research and others call editorial judgment, often varying between the two depending on their immediate needs. Of the two words, "mayhem" is the less hyperbolic; while there was some violence, the majority of what I saw was a couple of thousand people standing around waving flags and signs. Thus "mayhem" better characterizes the events than "attack". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling this "mayhem" would downplay the fact that several of these rioters had weapons (five were confiscated) and carried improvised explosive devices: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/we-will-never-concede-trump-baselessly-asserts-voter-fraud-speech-n1253011

Weapons and especially explosives characterize an attack more than "mayhem." --Redgon (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The word "insurrection" has been used quite a lot; there are cites for it. A compromise between attack and mayhem. Bdushaw (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, I agree with the comment above. Thank you. --Redgon (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mayhem seems more hyperbolic than attack. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mayhem" implies chaos, whereas the mob seemed to be reasonably purposeful. Insurrection implies there was an uprising, an attempt to take over the government.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary entry for "mayhem". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would call it a riot. Compare with the riot at the Australian parliament house in 1996. These things happen worldwide. They aren't insurrections. They are just protesters who cross the boundary of legality...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of inciting violence section

The riot should also be listed under the above mentioned section too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Allegations_of_inciting_violence

2021 storming of the United States Capitol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2701:64E0:121:DA51:3293:EE2F (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already there here. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fugitives wanted by Iraq/Iran

Judges in Iraq:[18] and Iran:[19] have issued arrest warrants on Donald Trump. So far, Trump hasn't complied and surrendered to the judicial systems in these two country's.

Should these two category's be in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should include the categories. We include Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States for many citizens of other countries wanted by the US. --Tataral (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

De-link "45th" in lead?

For some reason, when Trump is described as the "45th and current president of the United States", the "45th" is linked. This is inconsistent with other presidents' articles, and linking "45th" in the lead looks weird. The link also looks like it is linked to the Wikipedia page about the number 45. Linking the number of his presidency is inconsistent with other articles, and the link also looks unnatural. Please note that this would change Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus, item 17. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was just an incumbent thing (see Mike Pence article). GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm known to oppose cross-article linkages absent community consensuses for them, but I would be happy to see this link go for at least two reasons. First, it's MOS:EGGy in the extreme. While EGG is widely disregarded even by editors who are aware of it and understand it, we're talking about the first sentence of the article here. And secondly, I really don't think a link to a list of U.S. presidents is particularly useful to a reader coming here to read about the life of Donald Trump. In that context, they probably don't care a lot about the names and dates of the preceding 44. While we're here, let's solicit more participation at #Second interim proposal, which has a deadline of January 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Trump committed to an "orderly transition" of power in a statement after the violence and the joint session of Congress counted the vote of the Electoral College and certified Biden's victory needs to be in the lead.As the first time he has agreed to give power clearly sourced in WP:RSPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why put it in the lead? He's not the first defeated US president, to promise an "orderly transition". GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It is context of the violence and his refusal to accept the results including comments like Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden but refused to concede defeat.Now he has agreed to give up power.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your addition to the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Do not add material to the lead that doesn't already exist in the body of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be mentioned in the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Does it really? Maybe this statement will be important, maybe it's just another meaningless empty promise. Right now, it's just one more statement issued by the administration among thousands over the past four years. It's newsworthy, but Trump does a dozen newsworthy things a week, and most of them do not belong in this article. How are we supposed to establish due weight based on persistent coverage in reliable sources when it's been less than a day since he said that? This is supposed to be a biography of Donald Trump, not an up-to-date ticker tape of everything he's said or done as president. Will this press release be significant in 5 years? It's questionable whether this should even be mentioned in this article, but it's not a question that it absolutely should not be in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Trump's entire life, and this is not lead-worthy in that context. The article about his presidency is Presidency of Donald Trump. Proportion of this lead currently devoted to the most recent 6.7% of his life: 80%. Precisely because too many editors don't understand that this is a biography article. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay that is fine then if the consenus is against it fine.Thanks.Will not be reintroduced by me .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lead is far too long. I am not going to edit the page (I still have setting myself on fire as a less painful option) but could you who are working on this page please come to an agreement on a lead that is a reasonable length? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Based on my experience here since 2016, I seriously doubt it, at least as long as there are longer leads for editors to point to. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  People keep saying the lead is too long, but (as I pointed out last time this came up), is that true? The leads on Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan are all roughly comparable in length. While Trump was only a one-term president, he did more notable things before the presidency, and the wide variety of things he's done throughout his life, plus the wide variety of controversies and distinct unrelated noteworthy events as President, make it harder to condense them into single paragraphs. (I don't think this particular tidbit needs to be in the lead right now, mind. But I'm not convinced the lead overall needs to be drastically reduced - it's roughly in the ballpark for other recent presidents.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't disagree with that, so I'll strike my previous comment. My main issue is the excessive material on the presidency in both the body and the lead, for a person who was well-known worldwide and well-reported for ~40 years before he ran for president. Contrast with Obama and Bush43, largely known only in their home states. Obama became a U.S. senator from Illinois at age 43 and Bush43 became Texas governor at age 48. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I was not expecting anyone to defend the length. We have a guideline on this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

There are two possibilities, both of them undesirable:

1. The lead contains a bunch of material that is not found in the body.
2. We basically have two standalone articles on the same page; one at the top and the other farther down.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is obviously much longer than our guidelines. I don't think it's either of those problems though, Guy Macon. It suffers from being overly bitty and contains too many non-essential, miscellaneous facts because of recentism. When freshly elected president, being "the first without prior military or government service" may have been significant to an overall summary of Trump; after a presidency full of dramatic events it doesn't deserve lead space. A more narrative-based summation with judicious cutting is the solution, but a consensus won't be possible right now because someone will be upset each time a detail is removed. Is "moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem" a key piece of information about Trump, discussed in significant detail in the article? As Aquillion points out, recent US presidents all have (overly) long leads. I went and practised shortening the Trump lead in my sandbox, and the problem isn't that it's particularly difficult, it's that the type of ruthless cutting necessary will bring it out of line with the detail in those other presidential leads; it wouldn't be even-handed to reduce the lead here without rewriting the others. I disagree that this means a controversial/noteworthy tenure requires a lead of this length though. Compare/contrast with Boris Johnson, Theresa May, François Hollande, Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher. Jr8825 • Talk 15:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy, it says "As a general rule of thumb", which provides room for editors to argue that U.S. presidents need to be exceptions to the general rule. We can disagree with that, but we can't say the argument is illegitimate, and it comes down to majority rule like everything else. The lead wouldn't be like it is if the majority didn't feel that putting all this presidency-related material in the lead is more important than a "silly MOS guideline" (I'm sure it's been cited sometimes in these discussions, so it's not something we didn't already know about). We (i.e. they) must push the Truth about Trump to the most visible part of the most visible article about Trump, since that's where it will be read by the largest number of readers. This is an example of the price we pay for flexible guidelines, and surely better than the alternative. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

...Resulting in our turning what should be "the most visible part of the most visible article about Trump, since that's where it will be read by the largest number of readers" into "a huge TLDR wall of text that is ignored by most readers, and those who do read it would have read the same material in the body". See unintended consequences and WP:TLDR. The effect of too much text has been proven to be true in multiple academic studies. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"We have a problem. Most people don't read the entire article. They just read the lead."

"OK, I made the lead as long as the article."

"Now they only read the first paragraph of that long lead."

"OK, I made the first paragraph as long as the lead."

"Now they only read the first sentence of that long paragraph."

"OK, I made the first sentence as long as the paragraph."

"Now they only read the first word of that long sentence."

"OKImadeTheFirstWordAsLongAsTheSentence."

"Now they only read the first part of the first word."

"OK, I just sent The Wikipedia Police to kick in their door, tie them to a chair with their head in a clamp, tape their eyes open, put a self-refreshing scrolling feed of the article on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into their ears." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter Account

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.

---

I reviewing over Donald Trump's article and I saw that his Twitter account is still on the Wikipedia article. Since, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has ban Trump's account "indefinitely." So, I'm wondering if his twitter account should be removed. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) | (email me!!) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

He’s back on Twitter. -AdamF in MO (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean necessarily permanent, as any editor who has been indeffed and successfully appealed can tell you. The title of your own cite says, "at least through end of term". It would make no sense to remove this stuff whenever he gets a temp block for bad behavior, only to restore it when the block expires. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both, User:Adamfinmo and User:Mandruss for clarfying that! I thought it was Facebook, Instagram, AND Twitter. So, thank you both! Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) | (email me!!) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Who says this is a thankless job?? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Middle East Peace Deals

Trump brokered peace deals between Israel and the Arab nations of United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Bahrain, and Morocco. [20]

Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering the aforementioned peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. [21]

Trump also brokered an agreement that restored ties between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. [22]

These are major foreign policy achievements of the Trump administration, and they aren't mentioned in the wiki page. These foreign policy achievements should be mentioned alongside the other Middle East matters that are mentioned in the introductory section.

184.164.187.121 (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

He didn't "broker" the agreements, and his nomination (if it can be called that) for Nobel Peace Prize is not notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The NYTimes article at the 1st reference and the NBC article at the 3rd referenced both say that the Trump administration brokered the deals. Both the NYTimes and NBC use the word "broker" to describe Trump's role. Furthermore, the BBC article at the 2nd reference clearly says that Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, so the word "nominated" is correct. A separate question is whether such a nomination is noteworthy. In any case, the Trump administration's role in BROKERING middle east peace deals is noteworthy, and ought to be mentioned. The only reason not to mention it is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.187.121 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)

there is some factual inaccuracies 38.141.57.133 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference trimming causing failure of WP:V

Onetwothreeip - I understand your intentions in trimming this article. However, I am concerned that you are not being careful enough in your efforts, because when you remove certain references, we are ending up with unreferenced content which fails WP:V.

• 7 January [23] trimming: Removed [24] [25] [26], losing verifiability for: called for the election result to be overturned and called on his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell" ... Trump released a video telling the rioters to "go home in peace", but described them as being "great patriots" and "very special".

• 5 January [27] Trimming overuse of citations: Removed [28], losing verifiability for: The report said Trump had withheld military aid and a White House invitation to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.

• 3 January [29] overcites: Removed [30], losing verifiability for: the Trump administration sanctioned 25 Iranian individuals and entities

• 30 December [31] Trimming: Removed [32], losing verifiability for: The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General inspections of migrant detention centers in 2018 and 2019 found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "in many instances" violated federal guidelines for detaining migrant children

• 25 December [33] Trimming, summarising: Removed [34], losing verifiability for: sharply increased the number of family separations at the border starting from the summer of 2017

• 23 December [35] overciting: Removed [36], losing verifiability for Trump has promoted ... QAnon

With so many recent instances of mistakes, I hope that Onetwothreeip can improve on this. starship.paint (exalt) 08:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Are you sure that the content is not also supported by the remaining sources? I'm not sure how many references I have trimmed out of the article, but six is a relatively small proportion. Still, it is important to me that all the remaining content is properly verified, and I will investigate this further. I would also appreciate if other editors would join in this task of trimming citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: - yes, I am sure, and you can check. I had to check, otherwise I wouldn't know what was verified (which I didn't include above) and what wasn't. starship.paint (exalt) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: It's not entirely clear to me that you fully understand that it's not up to others to check your work on this. If you had to ask whether Starship.paint was sure, that means you weren't sure, and that's unacceptable. Having too many citations is a FAR less serious problem than not having enough. If you can't do the legwork, leave cite-trimming to those who can. Please don't get called out on this again. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Mandruss, I checked the citations during those edits but clearly I've made some mistakes. I was simply asking if they were sure that those were mistakes that I had made, and I thanked them for bringing this up. I'm definitely not saying that other editors should have to check the work, I was saying that it would be good if other editors removed excessive citations as well. Of course I now have no choice but to be more careful if or when I continue to assess the article for references which can be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a big problem, and it has been pointed out by several editors over a period of many months. It is very destructive. SPECIFICO talk 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with this complaint about the deletion of citations. The article is regularly attacked for being biased, hence liberal use of citations is warranted. I am wondering if the deletion of citations is not a prelude to later deletion of text, for being unsupported. I've complained several times about the "trimming" - article size will not be reduced significantly by "trimming"; a different organization/article approach is needed; we should be smart about it. Bdushaw (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

article size will not be reduced significantly by "trimming"; a different organization/article approach is needed - There ya go. See, I'm not the only crazy person around here. I've been using the words "sea change" of late. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly assure you that removing citations has never been done by me with the intention of removing any content for being unsupported. A different organisation of the article would very much be a good idea. What proposals would you, or anybody else, have for this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC

You start by dramatically reducing the amount of detail about the presidency, given that his life is not the life of a typical U.S. president and therefore we need to stop looking at other presidents for guidance. We don't need all that detail about domestic policy and foreign policy here, for example, and both should be summarized at a higher level.

How do you know when you have reduced enough? In my opinion, a good rule of thumb would be 80 kB of readable prose, halfway between "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided" per WP:SIZERULE. The article is currently at 122 kB, so that's a reduction of one-third, resulting in something still significantly larger than the guideline recommends. I see no justification for completely throwing out size guidelines for Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as convinced as you that Donald Trump was much more notable for non-presidential events as other presidents were, but I certainly agree that the detail about his presidency needs to be significantly reduced. In that sense we actually could look to the articles of other presidents, as they are much smaller than this one. I would be proposing more drastic reduction of content than I have been doing, but I am put off that by what feels like inevitable endless discussion and argument, where editors argue that removing anything negative about Trump is making him look too good. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Refused to concede defeat

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

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

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

Just a day earlier he said [37] Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out... It seems that the new stance is that I did lose but illegitimately. starship.paint (exalt) 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The term far-right must be in the lead

It's an extremely glaring omission that the term far-right isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead, not even once, not even buried in the third paragraph. We can no longer accept this. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described Trump's policies and views as far-right, and we even describe many of his own lesser officials (like Stephen Miller) as far-right. As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right (in Europe Trump has been considered completely toxic and radioactive, something they wouldn't touch with a barge pole, even in the mainstream conservative parties for years), he's far-right if there ever was a far-right politician in the US; the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS.

At the very minimum, we should change the sentence Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist to Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right --Tataral (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Dang all Trump supporters are far-right now? By definition nonetheless. No. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not now, this was always the case, as far as mainstream scholarship and mainstream reliable sources are concerned. We are no longer going to indulge fringe views in this article, which has deviated substantially from the mainstream narrative for the past four years in the way it denies that Trump is far-right, normalises his views and conspicuously downplays criticism and the mainstream narrative. --Tataral (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean that's just... not true at all, lol. There absolutely is no consensus among RSs that all Trump supporters are inherently far right. I hate to assume bad faith but I fear you might be letting your own views creep in here. — Czello 16:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      • No, what I wrote above is simply a summary of the perception of every single reliable source in Europe not regarded as outright fringe white supremacist or something like that. It's time for Wikipedia to take the mainstream perception and narrative in RS into account. Local US debates are less relevant, we're not here to please the far right in the US. --Tataral (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Largely Europe is not relevant. From what I can tell the views you are expounding are the fringe ones. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
        • every single reliable source in Europe Again, simply untrue. I've read RSs myself that make an argument directly against this. It's time for Wikipedia to take the mainstream perception and narrative in RS into account. We literally do. If there are any sources in the article right now you think aren't RS, feel free to start a discussion on them here. Local US debates are less relevant, we're not here to please the far right in the US. Well I have good news for you, the far-right hates this article! — Czello 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed text doesn't say that his supporters are all far-right (or even that any of them are far-right), merely that Trump's own political positions have been characterized that way. People can support him for one of the many political positions he has been characterized as having without endorsing all of them; and even beyond that, the fact that this is expressed as summarizing how he is characterized by sources further down the article makes it clear that eg. his supporters may not all agree with that characterization. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You are misreading or misunderstanding mine and their comment. Please re-read them or perhaps others comments here that took issue with the same part. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. The sources are not unanimous and the label is clearly contentious. For this reason it's mentioned at Trumpism. Including it in the lede would be wholly inappropriate given the ongoing debate about his views. the idea that Trumpism is not a far-right ideology is a fringe POV with no support in RS. -- this is flat-out wrong; there are plenty of sources that call him something else (right wing populist, usually) and it's most certainly not a fringe view. The debates regarding his political views have taken place regularly here, the Trumpism page, and the Political positions of Donald Trump talk page (which doesn't call him far-right once, either). As reliable sources have agreed on for years now, all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right -- this is also just simply untrue at all. There is no such consensus at all. How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant. — Czello 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"How he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant": Well, how telling, considering how many editors have pointed out US bias for years. How he is considered in Europe is more relevant than how he is considered domestically in his own country, just as our coverage of Putin is not based on Russian domestic propaganda but on the international view. This is not Wikipedia for the US. Europe is a larger region, and quite frankly European sources generally have more weight and credibility than local (often very biased) views in authoritarian states or less developed democracies, whether in the US or Russia. --Tataral (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would Europe's views take precedence over the rest of the world? Also, you're comparing Russian state propaganda to US media, which is a fallacy. You seem to want to dismiss US sources because you think they exist as part of an authoritarian regime; this is wrong. The fact that there more US centric sources is because he's the US President. Of course there are going to be more US pieces on him. — Czello 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is just a bunch of strawmen and has nothing to do with what I wrote. You claimed "how he's considered in Europe is also irrelevant", which is clearly wrong. The fact that European sources combined have more weight for a number of objective reasons related to WP:DUE and the quality of the sources doesn't mean that we should disregard US sources, only that US perspectives shouldn't be the only views represented in the article, and that the article shouldn't reflect a WP:FALSEBALANCE between a mainstream US view (as found in high-quality US sources like NYT and CNN) and the US far-right. It should represent a global perspective, where the mainstream US perspective is primarily represented by sources like NYT. It's not about Europe taking "precedence", it's about the global consensus in the same way that our critical coverage of Putin is about the global consensus in countries where freedom of speech exists. --Tataral (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

only that US perspectives shouldn't be the only views represented in the article I'm afraid you've talked yourself into a corner here. Previously you stated that all RSs described Trump and his supporters as far-right, but if you want to get away from just US sources, you must therefore be conceding that there are some (US) sources that disagree with that label? I mean, there are European sources that disagree too, but that's another issue. and the US far-right What US far right sources are being used in the article currently? it's about the global consensus in the same way that our critical coverage of Putin is about the global consensus in countries where freedom of speech exists Yes, we're already doing that now. There are sources in this article that aren't American. No matter what the balance between American vs non American sources there is, it doesn't support your view that he's unanimously viewed as far-right. — Czello 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've not seen any mainstream sources claiming he isn't far-right. Even if not all sources don't use that specific term at all times, it doesn't mean that they view him as a centre-right politician. Your insistence that each and every source must have specifically declared him to be far-right or used the term in every article about him for us to mention that term along with nationalist and isolationist, as some of the prominent descriptions of him, is not how we do things. There is clearly global consensus that he is a far-right politician. --Tataral (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've not seen any mainstream sources claiming he isn't far-right. Take a look at Trumpism and Political positions of Donald Trump, you'll see a bunch. Even if not all sources don't use that specific term at all times, it doesn't mean that they view him as a centre-right politician. The options aren't just "centre-right" and "far-right", y'know. There is a space between them. each and every source must have specifically declared him to be far-right I never said that at all: I was disputing your claim that reliable sources "have agreed" on this for years (your words, not mine), which simply isn't true. There is clearly global consensus that he is a far-right politician. There clearly is not, friend. Some call him far-right, some call him right wing populist, some call him a plutocrat. It's not a consensus. — Czello 17:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Plutocrat and far-right are not mutually exclusive terms, this is really only about what aspect the source is focusing on. Far-right refers to his openly stated racist views and policies, his openly stated support for white supremacists and so on. The term "consensus" doesn't mean that everyone, without exception, must agree. And even if you were right (which I disagree with), it would be sufficient for the term to be used to a significant degree for it to be included in a sentence mentioning some prominent desciptions, as outlined above ("Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, nationalist, and far-right"). --Tataral (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And the consensus among sources doesn't still support far-right, especially not to the point where it must be in the lead. It's obviously controversial. Currently this article describes him as "right-wing populist", and even goes out of its way to say "He supported or leaned toward varying political positions over time" and "described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory". These are the least controversial descriptors which are all supported by RSs -- to dismiss this in favour of shoe-horning far-right in there would be WP:UNDUE. The term "consensus" doesn't mean that everyone, without exception, must agree Yes, I know; but there isn't even a consensus when you keep this in mind. Again, it's clearly disputed which is why the more dedicated articles (the two I previously linked) dig into this in more detail. — Czello 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Similar to American English vs British English it depends on the subject of the article which we use. This article is about American politics so we use that as a level for spectrum, not whatever one the editor thinks is best. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. The article on Putin is not written from the perspective of Russian Putinists, we are not going to write about Trump from a far-right Trumpist perspective either. This is a global encyclopedia, and our articles on Trump and Putin should reflect the consensus of high-quality sources worldwide. As a more advanced (human development, democracy, freedom of speech) and also larger region European sources clearly have more weight combined than local perspectives in a less developed, less democratic country. For instance, our articles on the Putin regime almost completely disregard Russian state propaganda because it's a fringe view worldwide. --Tataral (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article on Putin is not written from the perspective of Russian Putinists, we are not going to write about Trump from a far-right Trumpist perspective either. We don't. The far-right hates this article. For instance, our articles on the Putin regime almost completely disregard Russian state propaganda because it's a fringe view worldwide. Where in this article is there US "state propaganda"? — Czello 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I would go as far to say that Europe is a less developed, less democratic country. I mean yeah they have their problems but they are still mostly above 3rd world countries. PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that not all RS have said he is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think such labels are useful, nor in this case do I see him described as such in RS. He is not personnally concerned with ideology as are even some of his entourage. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven and SPECIFICO. Certainly the far-right are among his staunchest supporters, and certainly many aspects of his leadership are far-right. But, his decisions are more haphazard then ideological and I don’t see a unified, RS description of far-right. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tataral: you're doing your case no favours by saying this view is "overwhelming" among RS. At most, you could make the case that RS overwhelmingly describe him as indulging/appeasing/pandering/catering to the far-right. And which RS are saying all supporters of Trump are by definition far-right? I had scour through JSTOR a few months ago and my impression was that while the news media is continually hardening its stance on Trump, the academic sources are more explicit. His political style is described as authoritarian and fascistic by a number of professors. I gathered a few sources here. A distinction should be made between his rhetoric/political style and his personal views and/or policies as a whole; he's described (by journalists and academics alike) as an egotist rather than an ideologue. Also, 'far-right' and 'populist' are both problematically nebulous terms (right-wing populism ≠ far-right, despite the strong overlap). Anyway, the academic coverage is still very much in its infancy, as it grows it will become clearer if this warrants inclusion in this article. For now, I think the best place for discussion is Trumpism. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen a source say he is not a hippopotamus, a dowser, or a handkerchief. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors here who disagree that all RSes say Trump or all Trump supporters are "far right", and who think that labelling biography subjects (or their supporters) with labels like "far right" is generally not productive or helpful. That said, I think enough RSes say something about Trump's relationships with (1) "right of center", (2) "conservatives", (3) "right wing", and (4) "far right", that the lead could be improved by adding a summary of those relationships. However, that would have to be done only after a careful source analysis and expansion/revision of the body (which somewhat covers those relationships but not completely). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if sources were to label him as far-right, and I agree that this is certainly not demonstrated to our standards, we can still choose whether or not we find it to be the most informative description. There are no uses of the term on the article of Adolf Hitler. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what Tataral says, including "far-right" in the lede doesn't imply that all Trump's supporters are far-right (which would clearly be inappropriate). I think "populist and nationalist" is probably the best explanation for the lede, but would consider "far-right" if there are good sources. A quick Google search confirms that some of his supporters are far-right, but doesn't give sources saying he is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

TBH, he out-left the left, concerning the $2,000 stimulus checks & the $740 billion military budget. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Only if one believes that fiscal responsibility is a conservative ideal, but that's not true, it's just Republican propaganda: it's well established that deficit spending is a bipartisan ideal. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter account

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.

---

Just an FYI but I've removed his Twitter account given it was a permanent suspension and reading the blog on Twitter it doesn't sound like the suspension will be lifted anytime soon. I suspect someone somewhere in the world will have a problem with my removal so figured I'd come here just in case. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted per Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus#Current consensus item 9. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng - I respect you as an editor and as a person ... however I certainly agree with your reversion - It's not like I'm replacing his account with someone elses .... I'm simply removing an account which is no longer viewable to anyone ...... what's the point of having a link to a permantely suspended account?, Oh well I'll start an RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh, I don't have an opinion. Here is the RFC that mandated it's inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was consensus for its inclusion however reading #9 I read it as his account should be there but not others (IE @FLOTUS, @THEWHITEHOUSE (or whatever that username is), Meh it is what it is, I've started an RFC to save arguements etc etc, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the link to Donald Trump's Twitter account with that of the Trump Twitter Archive v2: [38] FunnyMath (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Davey: If it's an obvious and uncontroversial change, establishing a new consensus is fairly straightforward. Best to follow parliamentary procedure. I haven't an opinion on it yet but I may later. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ironically I've been screamed at before for starting an unneeded RFC where the change wasn't controversial so damned if I do and damned if I don't! :), Meh I just hate situations like this where beuocracy takes over common sense but it is what it is. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When something is covered by an existing consensus, we seek a new consensus or leave it alone. If we are unable to reach a new consensus within a reasonable amount of time (definition of "reasonable" depending on the amount of participation), then we go to RfC. This is pretty standard and supported by WP:RFCBEFORE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Until now, I wasn't aware that we were using his twitter account as an external link. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Twitter account RFC

Should his Twitter account in the External links sections be removed? –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(I removed it however I was reverted citing consensus #9 to have his account here however it's now permantely suspended. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

• Yes - I see no point in listing a permantely suspended account?, If it comes back to life it can be readded however the chances of Twitter changing their minds seem slim to none. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Replace with link to the Trump Twitter Archive v2: [39] All of Trump's tweets can be accessed through the archive link. His tweets are historically significant enough to warrant inclusion. FunnyMath (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Abort per WP:RFCBEFORE. Extremely unlikely we will need RfC to resolve this. Davey, you just said you don't like bureaucracy[40] and then created a lot more of it unnecessarily. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tell you what Mandruss I'll scramble my password, delete my email and will fuck off from this place, That way I wont be creating any more beuocracy will I!, Can't fucking win here anymore. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And Donald Trump is not going to attend the inauguration. Please withdraw your RfC before you go. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mandruss, withdraw your personal attacks against Davey and stick to the topic being discussed. This was pretty damn flagrant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Twitter permanently suspended Trumps' Twitter account. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) | (email me!!) 01:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• No need for an RfC...the Twitter account is not there anymore; the previous consensus is moot! Bdushaw (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Snow remove, if it's not a link to anything, it shouldn't be here. We don't need an archive either. Arguable if it should ever have been here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes removal, because it's basically already removed. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove and replace with a Twitter archive. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for now; if the "permanent" removal turns out to be permanent, the link should be changed to some type of archive. Trump's use of Twitter is still notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• If Twitter says it is permanent, why are we speculating as to it not being permanent? Wouldn't that violate WP:CRYSTAL? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I subscribe to the Wikipedia philosophy that an indefinite block/ban isn't infinite, it only lasts until the ban is removed. That said, there's little harm in switching to an archive link now; I'll outright support it if the ban lasts through February. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove and possibly replace with an archive. Personally I don't the value, but I don't oppose putting in the archive link. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The account is blocked/suspended, not eliminated. It still exists and must be preserved, as it's official government records. Replace with an archive link. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Replace with the archive link. Contents are no longer accessible at the original Twitter page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove as the entirety of it is gone. Twitter said it's permanent. No use linking to it. -Kai445 (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

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

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

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

to something like:

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

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

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

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

Skipping the inauguration

I feel that this should be included, especially if he ultimately follows through with it, but do not want to muck up the main page inappropriately.

Some variant of: Trump has announced that he will not attend the inauguration of Joseph Biden, the 46th President of the United States, marking the first time in 152 years that a departing President has refused to attend the inauguration of his successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmaney (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, he'll join three (J. Adams, J.Q. Adams & A. Johnson) others in this action. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It probably should be in the as-yet-written "post-Presidency" section. It's unusual per Wcmaney, and will likely define the rest of his post-Presidency (per WP:CRYSTAL). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)