Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

An example of the incredible liberal bias of this article and unacceptable sarcasm is when it states that Trump started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which is said in a mocking, biased and selective manner. Please fix this to use specifics and not be so terribly indoctrinated. Instead, you could add AS A SIDE NOTE:

"He started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which he argues is insignificant compared to the multi-billion dollar ambitions he had. Since he was given this loan, the Trump Organisation has grown to an international enterprise."

Or you can use similar language that is acceptably more impartial than what currently exists. trainsandtech (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the language in the BLP that's being criticized is this: "Trump has said that he began his career with 'a small loan of one million dollars' from his father (which 'isn't very much compared to what I've built'), and paid back that loan with interest." Here's the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any neutrality problem with the current language; I see no sarcasm there at all. "Small loan" is Trump's own characterization of the $1-million amount, which he repeated many times, and the article is not using this fact to disparage him. Trump's net worth is estimated at 4.5 billion dollars by Forbes. Turning 1 million to 4.5 billion is no small feat indeed. Imagine your father handed you a generous $10,000 when you graduated, and you managed to turn this "small loan" into a cool $45 million after a few decades. Wouldn't you be entitled to say it was a "small loan" compared to the fortune you created by your own work? — JFG ^talk 10:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trainsandtech: Yes, I see your point. In fact, originally it was "small" loan of a million dollars. I added the quotes to include all of that because obviously only quoting "small" seemed POV and intended to be POV. But this is the language Trump used when talking about the loan, because to him a million dollars for a real estate development (the old Commodore Hotel conversion) would have been a small loan. But you are correct, his distractors do use it in a POV way. SW3 5DL (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, but would you say that maybe it would be a good idea to put it back to the way it was originally? trainsandtech (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean back to a "small" loan of a million dollars vs the current longer quote "a small loan of one million dollars"? I think sincerely the longer quote better represents what Trump said. If we only put "small" in quotes, readers don't know who put the emphasis on "small": Trump, journalists, opponents? — JFG ^talk 06:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

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

---

Close requested.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

1.

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

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

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

Preference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Abort per above. Rerun later... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2. Achieving "less than a plurality" in a popular vote in the United States is understood as "losing" that vote, which is how reliable sources describe such an outcome, so Option 1 is overly complicated. (It even still links to an article about people who "lost" the popular vote.) I prefer Option 2 over Option 3 because I believe 2 gives a better description. Option 3 describes him as a president who lost the vote, which sounds like losing the vote happened when he was president. Option 2 makes it clear that he took office, having previously lost the vote. At the time he became the president, his loss in the popular vote had taken place earlier; this is correct use of the perfect infinitive tense, and is grammatically correct in the sentence. DavidK93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 – None of the options reflects how the so-called popular vote is covered in reliable sources. Usually it is not mentioned at all: out of twelve randomly picked sources that say Trump won the election ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) I could find only one that makes the distinction between electoral college vote and popular vote (LA Times mentions the popular vote because Sanders brought it up), which suggests that mentioning popular vote gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. There was never a contest for popular vote, hence there can be no winners or losers. If we imply that there were two contests, then we must follow reliable sources and mention U.S. Electoral College. Majority (or plurality) of non-US readers have no clue what the heck electoral college is, which the majority (or plurality) of participants here have not addressed. All suggested options have problems, but the current one is the least worst option. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 4, with mild support for option 3, feeble, arm-twisting support for option 2, and total opposition to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

The 2016 election was the nineteenth in which someone was elected with less than a majority. Winning with less than a plurality is much more unusual, and that's why we say "plurality" instead of "majority". The word "plurality" is used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with it, so they can learn. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school.[18] Moreover, Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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.

---

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

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

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.

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

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

---

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

This is now the only question for this RfC:

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous question discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not correct. The earlier presidential articles did not say "serving as". They said "Barack Obama is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." [19] --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Should we stop discussing the lede?

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

---

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

11. The lead sentence is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC for best sentence to describe status of Trump's presidency

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

---

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

Survey

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

Discussion

• Why this RfC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comments-redirect page to Lyndon B. Johnson

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

Lyndon B. Johnson did so many good things for America via. The Great Society legislation and Donald Trump hasn't measured up. I move for a redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson. all of those in favor say aye. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Neigh (whinny). Happy AFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Neiggghhhh- They're both equal in my book. Plus Trump and LBJ think size matters, so there's that...--ZiaLater (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Don (honorific) mentioned in the lead sentence?

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

This is a huge oversight that needs to be overlooked immediately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Funny. But PLEASE don't call it an RfC, because that isn't funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I thought about removing that {{rfc}}. But I'm seeing weirder shit than that today, so I'm ok with letting it slide. It can be removed at midnight UTC, in less than 6 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC) what can be removed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) The above "RfC". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC) I guess you're talking about the previous talk page section. I didn't put an RFC template in this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) We're aware of that, and thank you for not doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC) You're welcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC) It's not in the lead because it should be in the hatnote, as a plausible search term people might misinterpret. See WP:HAT#cram in everything possibleSiuenti (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

American film actor category?

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

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

LGBT rights section

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

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

IPA?

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Because clutter.

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

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

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

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

Also--

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

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

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

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

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

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.

They too serve who wait tables

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary page break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just because something is phrased in present tense doesn't mean it describes the present. It's weird, but writers often use something called "literary present" and "historical present".[20] Likewise, with regard to former officeholders, they are often properly addressed by their former title if it was an office/rank that many people can hold at the same time, like Senator, Judge, Captain, Admiral, General, or Professor.[21] So merely using present tense doesn't necessarily describe the present.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

from JFG and

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

from Tiptoethrutheminefield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two sentences for the lead paragraph?

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Moratorium on first sentence

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.

---

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we nominate Donald Trump as a Good Article?

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

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

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

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

Like what, and in which section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A modest proposal

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

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

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

Imminent RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Sure.[22] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.