This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

	Other talk page banners

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

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

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

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

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

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

“He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, downplayed the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.”

This is more an opinion than it is fact and is up for debate. It should be changed to say something to the effect of some have criticized him for x, y and z while others would argue x, y and z.

I think that would be better because it gives readers both view points. But what is currently there is undeniably bias. 23gaydosg (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable, independent source that supports your view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(For future reference, the word you want is "biased". Information cannot be "bias".) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that up to me? I don’t even have the capability to edit the Wikipedia page. Plus if you go and read the paragraph it doesn’t cite any reliable source that would suggest that he reacted slowly and so on. So it seems like a double standard that it is my responsibility to provide a source when the paragraph that is currently there doesn’t even cite a reliable source.

Better yet just get rid of that part all together, problem solved. 23gaydosg (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23gaydosg, the lead is not supposed to have citations per MOS:LEADCITE, because all of the information in the lead is supposed to be in the body, where it has its citations. Look to the body and you'll see that it's in the body and there are reliable sources covering that information. Why is it up to you to find sources? Because we already have WP:CONSENSUS, so the WP:ONUS of changing it is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu, seems to me like a cop out. MostConcernedVoter (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a look in the body and I can not find it can you provide the number it's under. As what is linked to in the article is just another wikipedia page. To say he reacted slowly would imply slower than other countries in the same situation and there should be something to support that. It's clear you have a bias and I think the community would do better with someone else looking into this matter that is more neutral. WILDGUN96 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to [640][641][642] Bobsd (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is needed is some positive information to counteract the negative information given about his response to COVID-19, like he reacted slowly at first to the Covid-19 Pandemic but help put together Operation Warp Speed that helped deliver a effective COVID-19 Vaccine by the end of the year.BigRed606 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Current first paragraph

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

Proposed first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Not sure what else we'd say at that point. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He may well do "important", "lead-worthy" things next, but I would argue those would not rise to the level of his presidency and should be summarized later in the lead (if at all, whatever those things may be, etc.). The suggested revised sentence will be fine to start off the lead (the lead of the lead). (Unless there is a coup after noon on the 20th, in which case all bets are off...) Bdushaw (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, ONUnicorn, and Bdushaw: – Please have a look at the two amendments below and comment there if you have an opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've commented on both. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the two suggested revisions: (1) wikilink to Presidency of Donald Trump, per the easier wikilink path to President of the United States than the other way, and (2) "was" rather than "served" per puffery, better NPOV, and shorter. Bdushaw (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original proposal as clear and concise. Trump is mostly known for being president, so that should go first. The rest of his career is adequately summarized by the "Before entering politics" line which has enjoyed a very longstanding consensus. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Weak support I am not sure he is really a politician, rather then someone who won one ellection.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Clumsy and repetitive phrasing. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the |birth_place= parameter in the infobox, Trump's birthplace is simply listed as "Queens, New York City". Shouldn't it be changed to "Queens, New York City, U.S.", as every other American politician's page includes the "U.S." country of birth in their individual infoboxes (see Mike Pence, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris for just some examples). I am aware that there is already an established consensus on this issue (Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 36#New York City, New York, U.S. and Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 93#Infobox place of birth), however it seems that this one article is blatantly inconsistent with literally every other one, and we should not use the consensus for just one article as the standard for its content, especially when it is inconsistent with many others. The same issue is true for his |alma_mater= parameter, when Trump's degree is displayed as "(BS in Econ.)", when literally no other politician includes their specific degree (see the examples listed beforehand), and will instead just use "(BS)". --Politicsfan4 (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York City is well-known across the world for being in the US. People in Europe or Asia may not know that Scranton (Joe Biden) or Oakland (Harris) are in the US, but they will know where New York is. Furthermore, the points you have contention with have been discussed so many times. In order to change them, you will have to start an RfC. Also, a local consensus on one or more articles should not immediately transfer and become consensus on all related articles. Desiring consistency site-wide is not a reasonable expectation. For certain things, consistency is mandated, but there is no policy or guideline stating that Donald Trump's article must conform to or be in the same layout as all other articles about politicians. For fucks sake, there is no requirement that an article even has to have an infobox at all, as Frank Sinatra's article has so clearly exemplified until recently. Mgasparin (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is confusing, as most people would think that a republic wouldn't have queens.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we decided to add US, the proposed wording would not be used. The state name would need to be added between the city and country. --Khajidha (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So should it be changed to "New York City, New York, U.S.", as this is the normal display for people born in NYC? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Will change. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicsfan4: Please don't interpret a response from one editor as a consensus. I've reverted you pending a consensus for change, and apologies for the delay as I didn't see your edit until now. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Understood. Apologies for the change. I saw that multiple editors agreed with the new revision, and interpreted that as consensus. Also, what is your opinion on the education degree in the infobox? Should that be left alone, or changed for consistency? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is my analysis of the three discussions linked in #Current consensus #18, vis-a-vis this BS.

• 11 April 2017. Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Universities in infobox had an uninvolved closure for consensus for (BS Econ.).
• 18 16 April 2017. Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 58#Reopening discussion about 'Universities in infobox', a brief 3-editor discussion without closure, modified the consensus to (B.S. in Econ.). This was based entirely on how the University of Pennsylvania presents the degree on its website.
• The third discussion did not address the degree.

Since this is a style issue, and Wikipedia is not bound by the style elements of its sources (WP:V does not apply to style), I feel the reasoning for altering the first discussion's consensus was flawed, and I support reversion to that first consensus (only as regards the degree). It's perfectly fine for us to show (BS Econ.) when UPenn shows (B.S. in Econ.); the meaning is the same so V is satisfied. However, that's as far as I'll go, I don't think there is sufficient reason to alter the outcome of that first discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Agreed. Also, it is worth noting that the degree was displayed as "(BS in Econ.)" without the periods (even after the second consensus that you mentioned) until this edit, where it was changed to "(B.S. in Econ.)". -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had the periods as of this edit, implementing the result of the second discussion. How the periods got removed I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Yep. The main reason I started this talk section was not to debate the inclusion of the specific Economics degree in the infobox, but to discuss the punctuation of the current "B.S.". I would favor removing the periods, and changing it to "BS" for page consistency, as I cannot find any other article which uses the periods. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any consistency rationale per my comment below. Mine is about a flawed rationale in the second discussion, more of a point of order. But we end up at the same place, no periods. Now, the trick is to get a few more editors to get on board with that, else we won't have any more consensus than you had before. I don't know of a good way to do that, unless you want to create a new subsection in survey format. Some editors who don't want to talk much are willing to !vote in survey format. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Sorry for the late reply, but I am not exactly sure how to due any of the things you mentioned above to gain a better consensus. Is there any other way to get a good consensus on the education matter? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Politicsfan4: I've created a survey subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is no accident that there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or other community consensus supporting your general consistency argument. Wikipedia generally favors flexibility over consistency in such details. The differences tend to be far more important to some editors than to the average reader, and we're here to serve readers, not editors. I'd wager that readers will have no problem understanding the fields as written, and that's what's important. Human minds can deal with such variations quite effortlessly, we do it all the time. You could even argue that widespread consistency in form would seem dry, robotic, and boring.

There is also no community consensus governing how these specific infobox fields should be used. In such situations, editors at different articles are free to reach different consensuses, and that's what this article has done. I'd say let the existing consensus ride (if it had never been discussed before – or if there were a stronger reason to change – that would be a different matter). ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood the necessity of dividing up New York City, when it comes to birthplaces. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's untenable to me that an infobox omits the country of birth when this is not disputed by reliable sources, or that somehow New York City is known to be in the United States more than any city is known to be in a particular country. We should certainly say New York City, New York, United States. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The post-1707 British bios are a prime example of the birth & death country (Great Britain & later United Kingdom) being excluded. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:OVERLINK, we omit links of New York City because it's so widely recognized that a link is unnecessary. If NYC is that widely known, so are the state and country where it's located (otherwise it would make little sense to omit the link). Even for a fan of precedent-based argument, which I'm not, I've seen enough precedent for this in my wanderings around the encyclopedia.

This is a great example of why rigid consistency doesn't work, and why there is no guideline for it – it would deprive us of the freedom to treat different situations differently. New York City is not Des Moines and we should not be required to treat them the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On the degree, the reason I favor the university’s spelling of the degree is the same reason I think we distinguish between BA and AB (bachelor of arts vs. artium baccalaureus used by different universities for the same degree). The issuer can call degrees what they wish. On Queens, the five boroughs of NYC are in different counties, have separate borough presidents, and distinct characters. Many, if not most, Manhattanites mean Manhattan when using the name New York (I admit with embarrassment). The post office narrows it further. The official addresses in Queens are subdivided into Astoria, Long Island City, Howard Beach, etc. Which is to say, the federal government does not call these areas NYC. On US, pretty sure anyone who reads WP, and cares, knows where New York City is located. (Well, some American students think Ohio is a country.) As for consistency – hobgoblins. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The issuer can call degrees what they wish. Perhaps, but the difference between BS and B.S. is not the same as the difference between BA and AB. It's punctuation, like FBI and F.B.I. (which some of our news sources use, including the New York Times). I don't think UPenn would object to BS Econ., do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think UPenn would object to BS Econ., do you? An answer comes to mind relative to this article – but I should probably keep it to myself. O3000 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I used that joke years ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are more specific in mentioning where in New York City Trump was born because the city is well-known to most educated English speakers wherever they live unlike say, Scranton Pennsylvania. People have heard of Queen's: it's where the Bunkers, the Seinfelds and the Costanzas lived. TFD (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: True, but just because most people know where Queens is doesn't mean that some don't. While it is unlikely, it could be confused with other places in the world named "Queens", and that is why I would favor adding "U.S." at the end of the birth place parameter. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "Queens, New York City" could be confused with other places in the world named "Queens". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Sorry, I meant just "Queens" and not "Queens, New York City". However, even then, shouldn't it include the "U.S." after that just for specification? After all, it is an encyclopedia, and it should include the county of birth, even when it is obvious, for officiality. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, per what I said above about OVERLINK. Strongly disagree with the notion that we should include obvious things. The principle is to avoid as much unnecessary information as possible, since it tends to obscure the important information and increase the clutter factor, and that includes omission of the obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should simply be "New York City, New York, United States." This is how the city is described in reliable sources and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there is no need to specify the borough. I don't know if "Queens" would be confused with elsewhere but it's certainly not widely recognisable. It's important to keep these linked as well, so that readers can easily and reliably find more information about the city, state and country of the subject's birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor opinions vary widely on all of these things and it does not serve the article to keep changing such things depending on the mix of editors currently involved at it (principle of continuity). If you want to pursue a guideline please do it in the appropriate venue; otherwise, #Current consensus #2 is the product of sufficient discussion and is fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason why I haven't made a change to it myself. The consensus here clearly is to change, and it is only the exact wording that we now need to agree upon. I have no desire to change any guidelines, as these will vary on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read the discussion and I see no consensus to change #2, let alone a clear one. Maybe a survey with pings would help clarify that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but I don't think that means consensus can change when the editor mix changes. That would make no sense as I said, since it would mean that consensus could easily change again (possibly even reverting to the first consensus) after the departure of one or three editors and/or the arrival of one or three others. Rinse, repeat – with no end to it.

Rather, it likely means that consensus can change due to a significant change in the relevant factors. Trump's birthplace, NYC geography and political structure, and relevant guidelines are unchanged since #2 was established. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: "New York City, New York, United States" would be the wrong display, as "United States" is abbreviated as "U.S." in infoboxes and "New York" should be redirected to "New York (state)". Aside from that, I would support the change, however the current display of "Queens, New York City" is also fine by me. I wanted to get a more recent consensus on the issue. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the display, not the articles it would link to. I don't mind US or U.S. instead of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetwothreeip (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use "New York City, New York, US or USA". New York City is one city, so let's treat it as such. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is one country, so why not just say "United States?" There's no reason behind your argument. Why be vague, when we can be precise? TFD (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precise? Shall we show the street name as well? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a legitimate consensus on birthplace and the circumstances have not changed. Strong oppose any change unless someone can convince me that this reasoning is flawed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump is the most admired man in 2020 according to the latest Gallup poll. That should be added to the "Approval ratings" topic, right? - LucasBitencourt (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup, Business Insider. ValarianB (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So its not quite that black and white.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually won by the sitting President. More remarkable is that this is the first time Trump has won it outright. He was finally able to win it because this year Democrats divided their votes, whereas Republicans did not. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we list this on any other president articels?19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only on a few of them. For example, Obama has won it twelve times but I do not see it listed at Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me no then, its not really all that relevant and just a bit of puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the fact that Trump hasn't won the title in previous years, losing to Obama in 2017 and 2018. Why talk about the years when he lost it, but not about this one when he won it? Just pointing out he finally got one sounds fair to me. LucasBitencourt (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the entry to show his win in 2020. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Pump RFC has been closed as 'implement' flatten succession box as proposed. The editor who proposed the new type box, has been away for 'bout six weeks now. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mandruss: Should we add this to the #Current consensus? Something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I added the following to the 2020 presidential election section:

In a phone call January 2, Trump pressured Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state's result, telling him "I just want to find 11,780 votes" and threatening him with legal action if he did not cooperate.^[1][2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need to add the fact that Joe Biden has won the election in a certain part of the article that it is not in. CC12345678900 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – And note that an edit request is a request for an edit, not a request for the right to edit. You must have "at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits" to edit this article, per WP:ECP. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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