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.

	Readership

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

Template:Vital article

	Other talk page banners

• #RfC: Arab–Israeli normalization agreements

Any thoughts on shortening a statement in the lead section as follows?

CURRENT VERSION: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

PROPOSED NEW VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.

This would go down from 33 words to 22 words; it would preserve the most important bits (i.e., the level/rate of falsehoods is unprecedented) while omitting the unremarkable/obvious (the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio). Neutrality^talk 01:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seeks to alter #Current consensus #35.

the fact that these falsehoods have been documented - obviously they have been or else we wouldn't be making a reference to it in the Wikipedia bio - I'd disagree with that statement. We might be saying that because reliable sources have said that without any documented fact-checking (or at least without anything remotely approaching the scale of what WaPo et al have done). We do that kind of thing all the time. We generally don't require sources to prove the truth of what they say. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On the actual proposed rewording, do you support or oppose? It was not clear to me from your comment. Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I'm waiting for other comments. I could even end up abstaining, and you'll know that by the absence of a bullet with my name on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some discussion about the need for "the media have widely described" wrt NPOV. And whether the change is due to a change in situation or due to differences in policy interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note..."his campaign" is singular, whereas he has had two campaigns now. (Though "false and misleading statements" doesn't begin to cover the situation...) Perhaps an opportunity to finally change "The statements have been..." to "The misinformation has been..." Bdushaw (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposal with "campaign" changi7ng to "campaigns". I've long thought the extra stuff was really just there to deter edit warring, but as long as it is clearly spelled out in the body of the article I don't see the need for the longer version. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good catch. I just changed "campaign" to "campaigns" --Neutrality^talk 13:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No need to tiptoe around the facts. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this improvement. It's a fact, so say it plainly. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is definitely an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The statement is accurate with no need to substantiate it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not seeing a need to overturn long standing and well participated consensus.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need. I have no idea why this is even being discussed now. Efcharisto (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Economy is always good. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Trump said this is the best economy ever. Question: That comma bothers me, but I see why the wording felt awkward without it. Is there a way to improve the sentence structure? SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comma seems awkward because the sentence ought to begin with "To a degree..." Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose so blithely replacing a consensus resulting from an RfC that was open for six weeks and ran to over 10,000 words. I wonder why the decision is so much easier this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Eighteen days later, "blithely" no longer applies. Replaced with "oppose" at the bottom.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that discussion was closed in February 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Because in the 18 months since the press and numerous recent books have resolved any doubts they formerly may have held. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Quoting Paul Krugmann: Of course, we’re learning that Donald Trump and those around him lie about everything and don’t care at all about endangering other people. But that’s more of a confirmation than a revelation — we basically already knew that, although we didn’t expect such graphic evidence. I wonder why the statement is restricted to the two official campaigns and the presidency. This is his general bio, not the "Presidency of" article, and he's been making documented false statements since at least the 80s. If we remove the fact-checkers, shouldn't we remove the campaigns and the presidency, as well, and simply say that he's made many false and misleading statements before and during his presidency (to be changed to "before, during and after his presidency" sooner or later?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is whether sources provide a statement to that effect. If you can provide enough sources that do, then we can. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things the statement says implicitly is that he is lying while president. It is one thing to lie as a real estate developer or steak salesman, another to lie to the American public as president about such things as pandemic response. Perhaps the statement ought to more explicitly reflect this more consequential lying as president? I note that since the original statement was included in the lead, the section on Veracity was substantially expanded. Bdushaw (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support total removal from the lead. I would also support changing the proposed removed wording into a footnote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposed change. Regarding the former RfC, I note that the process can be rather bizarre, and not altogether logical. The existing sentence has, essentially, "weasel words" in "the media have widely described" - we have had considerable recent discussion on the use of such words (and recalling my recent RfC where my attempt to use such words in a misguided attempt a compromise went over like a lead balloon), with the solid consensus that they should be avoided. Just state the thing; the problem in this case is that just stating the thing is to use Wikivoice to convey a clear flaw in Trump, which gets perceived badly, by some. The proposed wording states the facts clearly and economically. I suspect for better English the sentence ought to start with "To a degree unprecedented...", however. Bdushaw (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: precision and concision are beautiful things soibangla (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worthwhile to try a different sentence structure, to avoid "to a degree..." Something like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, a tactic unprecedented in American politics.

Or using a semicolon to make a substantive statement about how unprecedented the misinformation is (corrosion of democracy?). Bdushaw (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tactic" is interpretational, suggests planning. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting it was unplanned? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the alternative wording. I disagree that tactics imply "planning", because a tactic can be reactionary. Planning would imply a "strategy", but I would argue Trump's lies are habitual and are only occasionally part of some sort of overall strategy, otherwise we would have reliable sources to support the idea Trump's lies are part of a plan. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other American president or presidential candidate in history. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a WP:RS for that? Or is it alternative wording you are proposing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't that a paraphrase of the initial suggestion above? However, I think this is better: Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president or presidential candidate in American history SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The many false and misleading statements Trump has made during his campaigns and presidency are unprecedented in American politics. ??? Bdushaw (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: The degree of false or misleading statements made by Trump during his campaigns and presidency is unprecedented in American politics. ??? (need "or" rather than "and") Bdushaw (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality's wording is correct: "to a degree unprecedented". "All politicians lie", but Trump doesn't just lie more than others, he rarely tells the truth. He is in a different universe, where hardly a single molecule of truth exists. It's a foreign concept to him. -- Valjean (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, as well. I let the issue sit overnight, and the nom's original proposal seems best. I thought of changing "many" to "an extraordinary number" ("torrent"?), but we perhaps should not belabor the issue. But it should be "false OR misleading". Bdushaw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, regretfully since I rarely disagree with Neutrality. Even as the sentence is we are constantly getting complaints about it at the talk page. If we change it to a simple assertion in Wikipedia's voice, without any explanation about what we are basing it on, we will be getting dozens of complaints a day, every day - and to some extent they will be justified. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We should never be concerned about the number of unjustified complaints, but I don't necessarily disagree with to some extent they will be justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally disagree with "let's go ahead and change the article in a way that will justifiably offend lots of readers, rather than keeping it as it is giving the basis for our statement." As you know, we hashed out the existing wording over a long period of time, and it has been stable for several years now if I recall correctly. The existing wording makes it clear: this is not something we are saying arbitrarily or because we are biased; we are saying it because is one of his most defining characteristics and there is overwhelming evidence for it. The proposed wording WOULD sound like we are saying it arbitrarily or because we are biased. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is loaded with things that sound like we are biased – to readers who don't understand our policies (and some editors who don't understand our policies). The only question for me is how to best comply with those policies – and they are so vague, convoluted, and seemingly self-contradictory that there is no clear answer, leaving things wide open to editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @MelanieN: - the existing wording has a problem though. It's not only the media which is saying that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented. It's academics. The mega-citation with the bundled references has six instances of that: (1) McGranahan is an academic source, (2) the NYT source refers to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, (3) the WaPo source refers to presidential historian Michael R. Beschloss, (4) the LA Times source refers to political scholar George Edwards, (5) the Toronto Star refers to presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, and (6) Skjeseth is also an academic sources. Given that academics believe that Trump's behaviour is unprecedented, I believe that Wikipedia can reflect it in wiki-voice. Does this change your view? starship.paint (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't. Thanks for spelling all this out, Starship, and I'm glad it is in the article text. However, it does not make "Trump is an unprecedented liar" into the factual equivalent of "the sky is blue". IMO we need to supply support, even in the lead, for such an inflammatory statement. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Factcheckers have confirmed that Trump has made more false and misleading statements than any other president in American history. -- Isn't that readily Verifiable? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but, per policy, not all that is verifiable must be included in an article, let alone in its lead. If it's included, policy is sufficiently vague (flexible) that editors can reasonably disagree about how to word it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? This discussion is about shortening it, not removing longstanding consensus content. Emir asked to be sure it's Verified. Yes it is. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It helps to put replies in context, or use {{tq}}.

  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact-checkers (WaPo, Toronto Star, et al) have not actually compared Trump to his predecessors. I don't know that anybody has at the item level, as if that were even possible or useful given that presidents haven't always made multiple public statements per day that were immediately fact-checked. That wasn't even feasible until the widespread use of computers, roughly 1980s (or maybe advent of the internet, mid-1990s). Any "verifiability" we have that Trump is unprecedented is from sources other than the fact-checker databases, and we accept their analysis without actual proof. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? I don't recall being involved in the initial consensus, because at the time I did not feel comfortable with what might have sounded partisan. However MelanieN without discounting your argument, I think it is the case that the press has been more willing, over the course of the most recent year, to emphasize Trump's false statements and even to call them lies. And we have a number of books in the past year that go into great detail on it. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why do we currently say that in the article? That's my point, which may have been unclear. I was responding only to your bolded comment, and the article does not currently say that Trump's "unprecedence" has been confirmed by fact-checkers. It says that the media have widely described Trump as unprecedented and the false and misleading statements have been documented by fact-checkers – not the same thing. You may be equating fact-checkers with reliable sources, and I'm not. That was not the intent of the phrase in the 2019 discussion, as I understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually for the purpose of the current discussion, it is the same thing. Otherwise, you should have shared your concern at the top of the thread. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative: "Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedent in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency." We could do with sounding a lot more neutral about the matter, and not seeming like Wikipedia shares that a view, while also being far more concise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would strongly oppose that. The fact of Trump's unprecedented level of false and misleading statements is a fact, not a "view," and we do not hedge on that. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a view. It should be paramount that Wikipedia appears neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you wished to avoid "seeming like Wikipedia shares that view." Neutrality^talk 04:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: No worries, what I meant was that it seems like Wikipedia has a view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"^[1] because he's a "habitual liar".^[2]

You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They are falsifiable. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner.

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote "Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. There are a number of editors who are unable to check their POV about this at the door. Somehow that POV never makes it into mainspace, which suggests that "Wikipedia (editors)" is not unabashedly on the side of it, your view notwithstanding. Apparently "Wikipedia (editors)" feels that such strong statements are not supportable by Wikipedia policy. I happen to agree that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale, as well as a number of other really bad things, but I know my opinion is irrelevant here and it's crucial to understand that. I save that for discussions among family and friends. I happen to agree that RS supports the kind of content currently in this article about that, but that is quite different from wildly irresponsible statements about blue sky "fact" that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not all Wikipedia editors are on the side of RS. I would never state in Wikipedia's voice that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale., but our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would never state that in an article, to say it on an article talk page is to voice your POV opinion, violating NOTFORUM and distracting from policy-based discussion. Not to mention at least giving the strong impression that you are unable to leave your POV out of content decisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neutrality. Let's reboot and get back to the source for the "unprecedented" wording. It isn't used in a willy nilly fashion.

• It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented [...] Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.^[3] Bolding added.

That is the sense in which we should continue to use the word. Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are far from the only offender, but statements like Trump isn't even close to anyone else. He's off the charts dishonest. are pure POV and have no place in any Wikipedia content discussion. That one simultaneously cites one source – or a hundred sources – does not make that appropriate. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for agreeing with RS and paraphrasing them. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that:

• Whether you or I agree with RS is completely irrelevant for our purposes, as Wikipedia editing is not about our opinions.
• You didn't say you were paraphrasing RS, you presented it as objective fact. Those are not the same thing.

This is not hair-splitting. What we say affects how we think about these things, and that makes it important. In my view it also demonstrates how we're thinking about them. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Then let's say Media outlets have widely considered Trump as largely unprecedented in making false and misleading statements during his 2016 election campaign and his presidency., because this is what reliable sources say. We shouldn't go beyond objective reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wording is grammatially awkward, at least to my American ears. Above I suggested that our sources would justify saying that Trump has made many false or misleading statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" in American politics. I have stricken "many" as "scale" covers that aspect. "Described" refers to the fact that sources do this so we don't need to mention them. When we say the "sky is blue", we don't say that "reliable sources say the sky is blue." -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: I agree with that wording, with some minor changes. Trump has made misleading and false statements on a scale described as "unprecedented" by various media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this change as a way to backdoor a controversial claim into Wikivoice. How many lies did Andrew Jackson tell? There is no way to have this material without attribution because there is no way to actually prove it. It will lead to endless disruption on the article and talk page as drive by readers and editors change it to something else. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Far from endless disruption, changes to consensus content are easily reverted without counting against 1RR. Persistent re-reverting by the "drive by" would earn a DS block, although that never happens when they are referred to the ArbCom restrictions and/or the #Current consensus list; the first revert is almost always enough. This has been proven to be a non-issue at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And I haven't seen any readers who have WP:ECP status. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the RfC on this statement, which was prior to the pandemic, yes?, there has been a significant change in the landscape. There are new sources, e.g., 'You’re Gonna Beat It.' How Donald Trump’s COVID-19 Battle Has Only Fueled Misinformation or From COVID-19 to voting: Trump is nation's single largest spreader of disinformation, studies say I would say a revisit to the consensus statement is warranted, in any case. An important factor here is he is acting as the nation's leader with this misinformation - which is different than misinformation at other times. The lead statement should reflect that factor (drop "campaign", ignore misinformation prior to presidency?) As I've noted before, Trump's use of misinformation is one of his most notable characteristics; certainly a suitable, definitive statement in the lead is necessary. Voting and Covid-19 could be noted as two primary topics of misinformation. Bdushaw (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We could abandon "unprecedented" and its complications for a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: While president, Trump has made many false or misleading statements, becoming a significant source of disinformation on voting practices and pandemic responses in 2020.

(Interesting to note the difference between "disinformation" and "misinformation" in this context.) Bdushaw (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to describe the outstanding nature of his falsehoods and misleading comments. Over long careers, plenty of politicians will have made "many false or misleading statements". starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - it is a curious problem how to describe, in a NPOV way, such incessant, voluminous disinformation and propaganda. I am not sure "unprecedented" does it either, while being a lightening rod for objections. I find I am, frankly, at a loss.

Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could a statement like:

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, policies or projects, Trump has regularly employed incessant, aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, print or social media.

be supported? I believe this is getting closer to the truth of the matter, maybe. Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Needs three serial commas per convention in this article. Following policies, disinformation, and print. Best to get such minute details taken care of before the text makes it into the consensus list, not after.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, our efforts are in retrograde, with each attempt worse than the preceding. I think we should leave the current text alone. None of the subsequent attempts is without problems. The first one (that I foolishly criticised for a misplaced comma) was OK, and there seemed to be consensus for that one. I would not object to using that one, but it's clear there's a little too much meaning to be gracefully crammed into a single sentence. Let's go with v.1 or v.0. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, perhaps my thrashing was still a useful exercise...people have been complaining how we never think outside the box. :) I have no objection to Neutrality's PROPOSED NEW VERSION, which I think is an improvement, given the difficulties. I think including "factcheckers" is of no value now; I have modest objections to the troubles "unprecedented" raises (also based on the troubles we had with the word on another article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; first sentence), but know of no better alternative (I tried, as all can see). As an aside, I noted the article is rather weak at describing Trump's use of political rallies during his campaigns and presidency. Such rallies are part of Trump's identity. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on the revised statement, a continued discussion of it is still warranted, IMO - the statement falls well short in that it misrepresents what are deliberate, massive campaigns of disinformation (following the Russian model?). I revise the statement above, just for kicks, and give a few citations on the massive disinformation campaigns that are going on, and have gone on. Its quite a bit more than what Donald Trump says or tweets out from time-to-time; its industrialized disinformation. All not unrelated to his hour-long call ins to friendly radio or TV programs.

KICKING AROUND IDEAS VERSION: To promote or defend his image, views or policies, Trump has employed aggressive campaigns of falsehoods, disinformation or propaganda in public rallies and on radio, television, or social media.

Billion dollar disinformation/Atlantic, Misinformation Machine/Sci. American, Trump's billion-dollar "Death Star"/Salon, Disinformation machine/CNN etc. The attacks on basic science are particularly disturbing, and have been notice. Bdushaw (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, skimming over the above, it seems that this is (unsurprisingly) leading to a lot of discussion about potential modifications to the clause. Trying to stay on topic, I'd suggest a guiding question might be this: Would it be possible to make the passage more concise without fundamentally altering its meaning?

The concerns raised above about the switch to Wikipedia's voice are reasonable enough to warrant consideration, but they apply only to the "unprecedented" part, since the first part is already present in the page. That'd leave us with something like Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree the media has widely described as unprecedented in American politics. But for that, the distinction between what's widely present in secondary sources and what we're willing to state in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't exist, since per WP:V/WP:NOR/other core policies, Wikipedia's voice is supposed to reflect what's been widely present in secondary sources. So that leads to Neutrality's proposal. It might seem like it's saying something stronger, but fundamentally it's really not; it's just cutting out statements that don't need to be there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "unprecedented": The first bullet at WP:WIKIVOICE reads:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Does widespread RS agreement make "unprecedented" a "fact" for the purposes of this bullet? Apparently not, or we wouldn't have the passage "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be [...] where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Since it's entirely unproveable, "unprecedented" will always be an "opinion" for the purposes of this bullet, despite the fact that the opinion is widely held. So I disagree that that qualification doesn't need to be there. In any case, there is nothing factually incorrect about the status quo language and we are beating our heads against a wall in an effort to save 11 words in the lead, a lead that many or most editors insist is not overly long. Those 11 words certainly do not constitute undue weight for this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per the nom and soibangla. Neutrality's original proposal seems like a distinct improvement to me. I disagree with the basis of Mr Ernie's opposing rationale in particular - not just for the reason that Mandruss cites, but also because, to my understanding, it's an accepted fact among RS that Trump has used misleading statements to a degree not seen before in US politics, not a "controversial claim". Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This essentially removes The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as, which is partially WP:PEACOCK stuff (it hypes how important it is) and partially describing facts as opinions ("the media have widely described"). Also, the current wording is inaccurate in that academic sources have also described it that way; but more generally, when something is essentially universally described a certain way by high-quality sources, it is inappropriate to characterize it as "described." Some people above have argued that this fact must always be framed as an opinion, but they haven't presented any actual reason why this would be the case (and, notably, they seem to implicitly concede that it is treated as fact by the overwhelming majority of sources.) If we go by that standard, any editor could, based on their personal feelings, term any fact covered by sources as a mere opinion and insist that we cover it as such - the flipside of "don't state opinions as facts" is "don't state facts as opinions"; and we rely on sourcing to determine which is which, not the gut feelings of editors. The sourcing here indicates that this is a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Insufficient justification for a change to the text resulting from six weeks and 10,000 words of discussion. See also my previous comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mandruss: I noticed that you didn't respond directly to the points that SPECIFICO and François Robere raised earlier, that the RfC dates from almost 2 years ago and there's now a much greater body of published media on Trump's exceptional use of false/misleading statements, allowing the statement to be given with more brevity and as widely accepted fact. Jr8825 • Talk 00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Re the use of wiki voice for "unprecedented", see this comment. No one has responded to that, and I don't require them to do so. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, and I generally don't consume discussion space to say "I remain unconvinced." ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  On current consensus 35 (the long discussion you refer to), the point being amended is #3 from the close. The close says itself: Slight Consensus was for substantiating the "unprecedented" claim by citing fact-checkers. This was argued for mainly to avoid WP:WEASEL. Most seemed receptive to this logic. It was only part of the discussion, and there was only slight consensus for it. A full discussion just on that part has taken place here, and editors feel WP:WEASEL isn't a problem. So I personally disagree there is insufficient justification to overturn that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "See also my previous comments." (which have nothing to do with WEASEL) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support new version. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Recent citation Today in the NY Times Dishonesty Has Defined the Trump Presidency. The Consequences Could Be Lasting "Whether President Trump wins or loses on Nov. 3, the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has been eroded." Unprecedented, indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for brevity + link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for details. — JFG ^talk 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator for brevity amongst other reasons. I would also support JFG's suggestion that a link be included. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)*[reply]
• Oppose. As per statements by MelanieN and BlackBird1008 (and possibly others above), removing the phrase that indicates these lies have been looked at by professionals with the specific purpose of determining the truth of his statements weakens it and leaves the reader with the impression that it's just "general opinion" without a clear factual basis. Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

Does this need an RfC? Opinion above appears to be split, with most supporting the proposal (numerically, about 9 or 10 editors), but a substantial minority (numerically, about 4 or 5 editors) opposing it. Neutrality^talk 22:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your proposal has consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this at WP:RFCL, as I think everyone would benefit from an uninvolved close. Neutrality^talk 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"during his campaign"

I note the present lead has "campaign", singular, while the suggested text was corrected to "campaigns", plural. (And I note to all that it is lead, rather than lede. WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) The lead wikilinks campaign to Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. Might I suggest a revision to "2016 and 2020 campaigns", where now the years wikilink to the appropriate article? (There could be a 2024 campaign, but we can defer that problem to a later date.) Alternatively, and redundantly but more clear, one could write "2016 campaign and 2020 campaign". Bdushaw (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the media needs to be mentioned to maintain some resemblance of objectivity in the statement. I’d support removing the statement all together because many of the “false or misleading” statements he has made are subjective BlackBird1008 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the text below be added under the "Foreign policy" section? Please refer to article's history and the above talk-page section for details.

On August 13, 2020, Trump announced that the United Arab Emirates and Israel were to normalize relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement.^[1] The normalization agreement between Bahrain and Israel was announced by Trump on September 11, 2020.^[2] On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Trump administration-brokered Abraham Accords.^[3]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned by bot) Yes per the sources presented appears WP:DUE as it significant foreign policy event --Shrike (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No The article is supposed to be about the man, something at this level of detail might be DUE in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. It is not really the case, afaics, that the Sudan arrangement, whatever it is, is "part of" the Abraham Accords although I suppose it could be argued that is a consequence of them. It doesn't mention the Accords in the joint statement nor in most of the sources I have seen and it seems to be something being put about by a Trump aide, even the given VoA source doesn't say that, it says that UAE and Bahrain signed the Accords, which is my understanding as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - the man himself was present and a large part of the negotiations. The man himself was photographed with the other leaders when they announced the "deals". It's completely due weight to include how he is the only president of the US since the formation of Israel to broker at least three separate successful (i.e. productive towards a goal of peace/relations) discussions between Israel and Arab nations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Berchanhimez, to be fair, this was always easy, as long as everyone was prepared to throw the Palestinians under the bus. That's what changed from every previous administration. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  One can argue that the Palestinians threw themselves under the bus Shrike (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand on my own comment with some more information/sourcing: this may prove to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term (from this article by a left-leaning news source). I wouldn't call "the most significant foreign policy achievement of his first term" something that's insignificant. Here's the BBC explaining why they matter, which is separate from the BBC article Tobby included in the RFC to begin with. The NYT even quotes Nancy Pelosi herself as saying it was "an important day". The biographies of many other people include their greatest achievements, and there's a consensus in the news media that this may be the best foreign policy achievement during his time in office - that is certainly biographically significant more so than the rest of that section now. The section does quite a thorough job of covering his "negative" achievements in foreign policy (ex: withdrawal from treaties, etc) - but per WP:DUE it must also cover his positive policy achievements such as this - especially when the news considers it almost unanimously the "most positive" thing he's done in his term in office. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No - a relatively insignificant foreign policy success that has almost zero effect on Trump's life. Belongs in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - obviously belong, just as other important peace deals are discussed in the articles of presidents involved. (I must also express my incredulity at the comment above. During 70 years, Israel has signed five peace treaties with Arab states; three out of five have come about this year. Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical). Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Calling that a "relatively insignificant foreign policy" is just nonsensical." None of these countries where geopolitical adversaries of Israel. If Trump had brokered a peace deal between Israel and Syria, for example, that would be meaningful. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong. According to The Times of Israel, "In a televised address Saturday on the new Israeli-Sudanese normalization deal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted that Israel carried out bombing raids in Sudan several years ago to stop Iran from smuggling weapons to Hamas via the African nation. ... Noting the historic significance of Friday’s breakthrough, Netanyahu stressed that Sudan was once an enemy state that fought against Israel in 1948. In 1967 it hosted the Arab League summit in which the so-called “3 No’s” were announced, he added: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel. ... He thanked "President Trump and his team above all — together with him we are changing history." The new accords were being reached "despite all the experts and commentators who said it was impossible," he said." -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Netanyahu will say almost anything to talk up Trump's successes because it benefits him politically, so he's not a reliable source for this sort of thing. Again, this is simply not biographically significant. It should be in the foreign policy article, not the BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No amount of guffawing by the article's subject would make this especially relevant to the article, and these agreements are not significant either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes given the gravity of the event in terms of geopolitical realities and related to his first term, as noted by User:Berchanhimez above. Arab states, even if not traditional "enemies" of Israel, granting it recognition is inherently notable given the history there. Also, any state shifting diplomatic recognition in itself is arguably notable insofar as it entails a major change in relations between one state and another. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The foreign policy events are significant, but this biography of Trump is not the place to include the statement. If Trump had made the achievements a major factor of his campaigns and administration - if he had personally argued for them, or if he had personally put his efforts and political capital on the line for them, perhaps inclusion would be warranted (if so, suggest rewording to be more Trump-centric). In addition, there has been quite a lot of discussion of restructuring the article to shorten it (for the same reason), with a reduction of the entire foreign policy section back to a summary paragraph or two. Any addition now would likely just be removed, along with a lot of other subsections, in a month or so. Presidency of Donald Trump is the more appropriate article for presidential topics not directly Trump related. Bdushaw (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are Trump's achievements inappropriate for his biographical article, but yet Barack Obama's foreign policy achievements are not inappropriate for his, or George W. Bush's for his... keeping in mind both of those (and many other presidents') articles are either Good or Featured status? He did put his own political capital on the line and he did personally mediate between at least the leaders themselves - hence why even "liberal" media such as Vox are calling it significant for him personally. I agree the wording could be improved - but the correct thing to do then is to help improve it, not argue against inclusion. Would you be okay with the following? On August 13, 2020, Trump and the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced they had reached an agreement to normalize diplomatic relations under the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. This was followed by a similar agreement between Bahrain and Israel, announced by Trump on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Trump announced that Sudan will start to normalize ties with Israel, making it the third Arab state to do so as part of the Abraham Accords, which have been called potentially the most significant foreign policy achievement of Trump during his four year term as president. - with the same citations already given in the original RFC and in my reply above (specifically citing the last part (most significant) to Vox)? If people think my wording is an improvement please feel free to do what you will with it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content of an article is not decided on the basis of the content of an entirely different article. Again, this will have ZERO biographical impact, so it doesn't belong in the biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the precedent of past presidents, which does impact the decision here, a president's foreign policy achievements are considered "biographically important". If you don't agree, that's fine, but you should be trying to get the foreign policy impacts removed from all other articles as well. Otherwise, your opposition here is just not liking that Trump's article could have something slightly positive in it? I note that you don't disagree with the citations that I brought up that call it the "most significant" thing Trump's done for foreign policy as president? You seem to be nitpicking your disagreement and ignoring the rest of what people have said. Regardless, I think it's clear you're doing that, so I'll just let whoever closes this do what they will with your non-policy-based and precedent-ignoring disagreement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree. Trump's life has not been like Bush's life and certainly not like Obama's life, from the standpoint of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that the BLPs about very different people should be treated the same in this way. And please review WP:AGF and keep your suspicions to yourself until you have tangible evidence to back them up. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have said nothing about why WP:DUE and WP:SS do not apply to Mr. Trump other than "his life is different than other presidents". That is not an argument against inclusion of this material which due weight and summary style mandate given the other information currently in this article. This has been called by reliable sources the "most significant" achievement of his time in office and merits inclusion as such per DUE and SS. I'm happy to wait for others to opine, but I will point out again that neither Mandruss or Scjessey have offered any policy based argument as to why DUE and SS do not apply here, nor have they even acknowledged that reliable sources call this the "most significant" thing he's done in office. I'll let other people opine here, but I hope whoever closes/acts on this RfC will note that these responses in this thread have ignored the policy-based arguments myself and others have brought up and ignored what reliable sources say to put their own opinion as to its significance into the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are confusing biographical significance and general significance. Trump's foreign policy activities will have no discernable impact on Trump's life or presidency, which means they are biographically insignificant. The policy-based argument that you seek is WP:UNDUE and WP:SS, in that including this material would violate both. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • given the other information currently in this article. And what if I also oppose much of that other information, for the same reason? Should I remain silent and surrender to that slippery slope? I disagree that DUE and SS mandate any such thing – I dearly wish policy were so clear, with nice bright lines for us to follow – but I'm prepared to accept the judgment of whoever closes/acts on this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No and I can't say it any better than Bdushaw did. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (Now abstaining after subsequent discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, as foreign policy has not been a central or important aspect of the Trump administrant, this has no bearing on his personal biography, esp. as we continuously speak about article length and how to trim. Mention in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Presidency of Donald Trump, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, United Arab Emirates–United States relations, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. are all more suitable for this content; this is probably not in the top 5 most important foreign policy aspects of his presidency. It also doesn't really represent any shift in U.S. policy, balances of power, etc. It is far less significant than, for instance, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the increased tension with European allies/NATO, the deal with the Taliban, the failed North Korea talks, etc., all of which represented a major shift/development in U.S. policy. Neutrality^talk 16:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong. Asia Times: "Aside from the US electoral aims, the agreement has geopolitical ramifications, most notably furthering the already significant isolation of Iran in the region. ... This agreement and the other recent ones undermine the now defunct Arab consensus that normalization cannot occur until there is an independent Palestinian state. ... The Sudan-Israel agreement is thus not only a triumph for Israeli foreign policy but for the American camp. While the UAE and Bahrain agreements only cemented already existing foreign policy orientation, the deal with Khartoum marks a new direction for a country of 40 million and a step away from a dark past."^[1]

  Joe Biden: "The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship ... A Biden-Harris Administration will seek to build on this progress, and will challenge all the nations of the region to keep pace."^[2]

• Tobby72, **Yes** - This is a historically significant event with plenty of coverage and deserves to be in the main article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the word "Trump" in any of that. I'm hard pressed to imagine Trump doing any of the diplomatic negotiation required, since Trump is not a diplomat or a statesman. Did Trump actively encourage the State Department to pursue this agreement? AFAIK he allowed it to happen, which meant doing nothing (not all foreign policy initiative starts at the top). Feel free to quote sources that contradict me. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reuters: "President Donald Trump on Thursday managed to pull off a rare victory for U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East ahead of his Nov. 3 re-election bid by helping to broker a deal between American allies Israel and the United Arab Emirates."

  Deutsche Welle: "Trump announced the agreement on Friday, following a three-way phone call he had with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. ... The announcement comes after two weeks of intense lobbying on the part of the Trump Administration, particularly the president's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom personally visited the king and crown prince of Bahrain, urging them to open full diplomatic relations with Israel."

  BBC News: "This is a diplomatic achievement for President Trump and for his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who largely brokered the agreements with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates."

  The Denver Post: "The ceremony follows months of intricate diplomacy headed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and the president’s envoy for international negotiations, Avi Berkowitz."

  The Times of Israel: "Trump announced the Israel-Sudan deal on Friday at the White House in a call with Netanyahu and Sudan’s leaders. ... Trump earlier on Friday signed a waiver to remove Khartoum from the State Department’s blacklist of state terror sponsors." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's enough to make me withdraw my opposition, and I'm striking my !vote. Not enough to earn my support, as I now feel the pro and con arguments are roughly equal in strength. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The article you cited from the Asia Times is an opinion piece, and it refers to the moves "furthering the already significant isolation of Iran" - i.e., as I said above, these moves fit into a wider theme, and are neither a major shift in U.S. policy nor a significant balances of power shift. If Trump brokered some sort of agreement between Turkey and Syria, or between the Saudis and the Iranians, or between warring Libyan factions, then I would be the first one to support inclusion in this article. This is not at this level. Neutrality^talk 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Trump brokered peace agreement between Israel and Sudan. It fought in wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That has nothing to do with my comment above: "neither a major shift in U.S. policy nor a significant balances of power shift." Neutrality^talk 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  USA Today: "It comes days after Trump announced he would take Sudan off the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism – a pivotal move that will help end Sudan's financial isolation and bolster its transition from dictatorship to democracy. ... The Trump administration said under the new agreement, the U.S. would also work with Sudan to help ease its debt burden and become a part of the broader international community." -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's important to Sudan and Sudanese-U.S. relations. That's not the same thing as balance of power shift. Neutrality^talk 18:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, put it in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration instead per others opposing the change. FreeMediaKid! 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Belongs in the off-shoot articles. Due to size constraints, not every action taken by the administration can be mentioned in the main Trump bio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Berchanhimez. This has been called by reliable sources the "most significant" foreign policy achievement of his time in office. Presidents have more power in foreign affairs than in domestic policy so Trump's most significant achievement in foreign policy should definitely be included in the article. Let's at least be consistent with Barack Obama's article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is whether the WP:WEIGHT of mainstream RS have called this "most significant". I see no references or analysis from any participant here that supports that proposition. Even remotely. c.f. North Korea, Saudi, Russia, China... etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing admin note: Please note that Tobby72 is the proposer of this RfC, and has now also voted "yes" (and "per another user", oddly) above. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding: All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, per my comment to OP directly above. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Frankly, I am concerned wit the OP's zeal in framing this matter in the best light possible for the BLP subject. Note this edit to Political positions of Joe Biden, which lists only Trump by name, and the leaders of the UAE and Israel generically, followed by Biden praised the agreement as a "welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.", which to the quick glance makes it appear that Joe Biden is praising the only named person, Trump's, statesmanship. In reality, per the source, Biden was singling out the UAE directly, Today, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have taken a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East. The UAE’s offer to publicly recognize the State of Israel is a welcome, brave, and badly-needed act of statesmanship.. ValarianB (talk)

  Fortunately, on widely-followed articles, this sort of thing is quickly spotted and corrected. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note this edit to Political positions of Joe Biden. The US and Trump are NOT marginal facilitators. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes (with the caveat that this might be removed in further reductions of the section) the "Israel" section feels incomplete without some mention of this treaty. Reducing this to one sentence seems likely and appropriate if the section is reduced further. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes for now, as it is currently deemed by the sources to be one of the most significant and notable actions of Trump. Of course things can change so this might need looking at with whatever happens over the next 8 years. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No: Not material to his life, this BLP is already full, belongs in presidency/foreign policy articles. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Of course this belongs here. Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won't get cause that committee only awards that to US Presidents who later cause the presenters a sense of buyers remorse[2]. But indeed, Trump's encouragement to one time foes to come to the table to work out peaceful resolutions on an international level is worth noting here and elsewhere.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its is one of the reasons he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" LOL no it isn't. He was nominated by the same whack job who did it last time before the agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess you haven't been paying attention? [3] Looks like you're in violation of BLP by calling Christian Tybring-Gjedde a "whack job"?--MONGO (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) I'd expect this to find lodging in the Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration article, with a mention in Presidency of Donald Trump, as it is significant to his administration. Assorted articles exist to prevent any one of them from growing to an unwieldy length, which every Trump article has the potential for.Lindenfall (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per all the above justifications. Additionally, it will be significantly more important once Saudi Arabia signs the peace deal. [4] Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the source you cited, that's not very likely. Saudia Arabia's top diplomat on Thursday called for direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, while again suggesting the kingdom won't normalize ties with the Jewish state until the decades-old conflict is resolved. In an interview with a US-based think tank, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud underlined the kingdom’s support for the Arab Peace Initiative, which sees a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No this belongs in "Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration." Bahar1397 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No. RS haven't actually reported that diplomatic relations have been established between Israel and UAE or Bahrain, just that they would be if Israel stops the annexation of the West Bank (which Israel has merely suspended) and if the UAE gets to buy F-35s (which Israel opposes, last I heard). So, two big ifs. Sudan is another big if since the current transitional government, which wanted to get off the terrorism list, is unelected, and the Sudanese public [is] largely opposed to normalization of ties with Israel. Trump announcements "that XYZ were to/ will start to" are not significant enough events in Trump's biography unless RS report that these "deals" led to peace in the Middle East, e.g. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC) 21:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)[reply]
• Yes - while obviously it should have more detail in the relevant article, it has a lot of coverage and clearly does meet DUE. I am distinctly concerned by the people saying "foreign affairs isn't important to Trump, so it doesn't warrant inclusion. That screams non-neutrality. It's bound up with both his presidency and that is bound up with him. If someone wants to recommend an even more slimmed down version, I'd happily consider it, but it should be included. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a peculiar RfC - it requests a consensus on a particular statement on a particular topic of foreign policy, and one that is of interest to the OP. It is peculiar because this is a hodge-podge way of formulating an article - are we to have an RfC on every specific foreign policy topic that is of interest to someone? A more constructive approach might be to postulate that we need to shorten the foreign policy section (of this biography) to be a few key paragraphs on Trump's main aims and efforts, then ask for the top 3-5 topics, say, that are particularly relevant and could be summarized in a sentence or two. If this RfC statement is approved, for example, does that mean it becomes an immovable boulder in the foreign policy section, such that when someone cleans up that section (as we've discussed, so it is likely to happen), the text in question would have to awkwardly remain? Is this middle east result the most important foreign policy accomplishment by Trump (his specific contributions to it still seem minimal to me)? Bdushaw (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes include it as the most historic agreements brokered since camp David accords. It should be in the body and mentioned in the lead like Jimmy Carter. ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes based on precedent and WP:NPOV. See Jimmy Carter (Camp David Accords) and Bill Clinton (Oslo Accords and Israel–Jordan peace treaty) Adoring nanny (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Yes. Our "Foreign policy" section of this article already includes much more detail about much less significant developments. Unless there is a massive cleanout of this section, which does not currently appear likely, the above paragraph should be included. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast bulk of the foreign policy stuff should come out, and agreements to formalize what had been quiet friendly relations for many years certainly don’t rank as noteworthy here, especially considering how Trump did a 180 on the Kushner plan announced in January to get these agreements. These agreements were possible only in spite of Trump’s stated policy on West Bank annexation, rather than because of it. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While you (and everyone) are free to your opinion, on Wikipedia we go based on reliable sources - at least one of which has blatantly called it the "most significant" thing Trump's done. If this is not present, then per due weight anything that isn't directly called the "most significant" by reliable sources should also not be included. I agree that most stuff should come out - but if anything remains, then this must because it is covered immensely in reliable sources and has been called the "most significant" by at least one of them. Not to mention the word "significant" (sometimes with "very" or other words) is used often to discuss these developments. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not an opinion that the deal was made possible because Netanyahu suspended his longtime objective of annexing West Bank settlements, and the Kushner plan in January greenlighted the annexation, which was contrary to decades of American and international policy for a two-state solution. So by agreeing to this deal, the Trump administration reversed its stated policy of just months earlier. It's also not an opinion that Israel and UAE had "a robust diplomatic relationship that had long been one of the Middle East's worst-kept secrets." soibangla (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what I was calling an opinion. Your opinion I was referring to was that it "do[esn't] rank as noteworthy" - which is countered by the fact that a majority of reliable sources call it "significant" or similar, and one even calls it the "most significant". I've seen no reasoning from anyone here as to why those reliable sources should be ignored or discounted. n.b. I fixed your comment for list-gap as well. Regardless, I think the best thing is to let the closer of this discussion evaluate whether the concerns about due weight are merited/valid or not based on the comments here, so I won't hammer it anymore in responses to you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about significance, we should give more weight to his major initiatives that have not yielded results: China, DPRK and Iran. These are the three major policies that Trump pursued, but they didn't pan out, which created the need for the Israel/UAE deal to get some foreign policy points on the board in an election year. Not to mention Netanyahu's political motivations, but that's another topic. This deal put on paper realities that had existed for years. soibangla (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've changed the beginning of some comments to follow MOS:LISTGAP by changing beginning colons to beginning asterisks as per the beginning comments and the overwhelming majority of new-lines. This should not have any visual effect whatsoever, but improves the flow for users of accessibility devices/programs. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes but condensed. This material is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion here but only in a condensed format. The UAE and Bahrain agreements can be easily consolidated into a single sentence. Sudan isn't noteworthy because, well, DJT announces lots of stuff that never comes to pass. R2 (bleep) 00:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not as phrased. That Trump made certain announcements is verifiable enough, but runs foul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there's sourcing for Trump having played a role in the normalisation of diplomatic relationships between Israel and these Arab states & Sudan; then include a brief mention of that. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – Those agreements are recognized as very significant developments towards peace in the Middle East, which has been a salient objective of the Trump administration ever since his election (and a stated goal of U.S. foreign policy for decades). Kushner brokered those deals at Trump's behest. Obviously we're not at the "ultimate deal" level he touted during his 2016 campaign, but that's not reason enough to dismiss those announcements as merely political fodder. I also believe this may be lead-worthy material, especially if/when a couple more countries sign up to normalizing relations with Israel. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JFG: Even if they are regarded as "very significant" towards Middle East peace (which they really aren't), they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life. That should be reflected in this article. Any coverage here should be minimal, and there's no way in a million years it would make the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scjessey: RE they have almost ZERO impact on Trump's life.: Irrelevant. The vast majority of what is in our "presidency" section has zero impact on his life. Shall we remove our entire coverage of immigration? Of "energy and climate"? Of health care, gay rights, abortion? None of those things seem to impact him personally. Significant actions as president are always included in that president's biography. That's because they become part of the person's legacy. I agree it would not make the lead, but that's not what this discussion is about. This material is proposed to be added to the "Foreign policy" section of the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just want to address some arguments that have been made recently. First of all there is very likely to be a significant reduction in the foreign policy content on this article anyway, so it's not particularly valid that this should be included because other stuff is. On reliable sources, there is a lack of attribution for this to Trump specifically. The balance of reliable sources shows that this belongs on Wikipedia, but not on the Donald Trump biography. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have GOT to source this line, in the last paragraph before the fold, "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic". What is 'slowly'? His administration addressed the issue in January 2020, when the virus was in its infancy. Yes, he handled the outbreak poorly, but that's easy to say in hindsight. I would argue that he reacted quickly but ineffectively to COVID-19. --Sebanderson (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the corresponding entry under #Current consensus above? In any case, worth being aware of MOS:LEADCITE. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence is synthesis of *opinion* stated as fact in a BLP. This is a hard libel which is very legally problematic as written and should be removed immediately or phrased to be clearly the opinion of his opponents. Coming to a consensus on WP does not wash it of legal problems. WP is not a place for pushing political stances as if they were hard facts. — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be here twelve years and not understand that citing reputable sources is just that and not staking a claim in and of itself? The whole point isn't that what's being said is a fact, it's that it's a fact it's being said. This *also* isn't the place to explore your insecurities about him facing a loss. If you have an argument to make, make it in good faith in the interest of the truth and not fandom. 2603:9001:6B08:9E6A:61F0:4EE2:4AC3:4A50 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 06:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIVOICE clearly states that opinions should not be stated in wikivoice, and should be attributed in the text to a source or as a widespread view rather than presented without caveat in wikivoice as if it were a fact.Sandman9083 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add a section about the current Trump attitude towards the 2020 USA Presidential elections? It's quite a unique behavior and unprecedented by any incumbent or even nominee. His twitter campaign towards the legitimacy of the elections, his flagged tweets, his claims of victory, etc. I think it's a biogrophically significant part of his presidency and is a potential paragraph that's significant regardless of the elections' outcomes. Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, anything presidency-related should be established in one or more of the many Trump sub-articles before being considered for inclusion here. If accepted here, it should summarize the material in the sub-article(s), not adding any details. The relationship between this article and the sub-articles should be similar to that between this article's lead and its body. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could be something big though. It should not be in this article yet, but it might be appropriate later. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think any definitive adds about the outcome of the election or Trumps attitude should wait until he leaves office. There is too much emotion in the world right now to appear objective and there are about 70 million people who think he still has a chance to win. Also if he does by some chance win, the section would have to be heavily edited BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time it is becomming more and more clear than Donald Trump has lost this election. Joe Biden has Huge leads in all the major key states. Trump's efforts to reverse those results have failed countless times. About 90% of them have been dismissed due to lack of evdience and the fact they only affect a really small number of votes. There is no way Trump wins this election. World Leaders, Politicians, and many others have declared Joe Biden the President-elect. Hell, this wikipedia's President-elect page has Biden as the president-elect. I think it is about time to add the successor to this page. I mean the odds of Trump overriding Biden's huge leads are slim to none and Republican leaders are beginning to accept it. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new subsection for each proposal. If there is consensus to add a particular fact let's not quibble about the wording, but try to get rapid consensus so we can find an uninvolved administrator to make the addition.

Add election call to the lead

Add election call to the 2020 presidential campaign section

Add Trump reaction to the 2020 presidential campaign section

Add a sentence to the lead about succession

Tataral has proposed: We should also include something about when he will be succeeded by president-elect Biden, along the lines of what what added to Obama's article in 2016 ("On January 20, 2017, Obama will be succeeded by President-elect Donald Trump").-- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I Oppose for now. He is still only called by the networks, and has challenged the call. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you expand on how this is relevant under Wikipedia policies? The networks are reliable sources about the outcome of the election. Trump is not. It does not seem compatible with WP:NPOV to omit the formers' views in the lede because the latter does not agree with them. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The courts are valid primary sources for the official outcome of the election. All indications are that Trump will force them to speak, but they have not yet done so. If the courts speak and reliable sources disagree with them, who will Wikipedia side with? The courts, I hope, although that's a very unlikely situation. There is no deadline and therefore no reason to rush to judgment on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not following that one, @Mandruss: in the US, the legislatures determine the results of presidential elections, not the courts. SPECIFICO talk 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I think Bush-Gore was ultimately decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you thought that, but it is incorrect. An encyclopedia needs to be clear and accurate. SPECIFICO talk 12:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever. I won't quibble with you about whether SCOTUS technically decided the election or issued a ruling that ultimately resulted in the Bush win. As for An encyclopedia needs to be clear and accurate, I have not proposed any content about this minor point. I suggest we move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MelanieN, and Trump is not Obama. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I Support on the basis that math is math - most of the votes are in, and Trump has no legal basis to challenge this outcome. Double standards won't do this article any favors. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until official results of the election are recorded. Lindenfall (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What about Trump is projected to be succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden? El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. JohndanR (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We can discuss the precise wording, but the name of the expected successor and the date of the transition are highly relevant facts in any politician's article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this stage.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All reliable sources have recognized Biden as President-Elect and have judged Trump's challenges as groundless and frivolous. So far, they have been swiftly dismissed by the courts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For now. There is no rush. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He could still die or resign before the end of 2020. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All reliable sources and Biden's own Wikipedia articles names him as president-elect. JJARichardson (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per precedent: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#Should_Trump_be_listed_in_the_Infobox_as_Obama's_successor?. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misunderstood the question. This is for the lead, not the infobox? Then support (per precedent). Arguments like Trump is not Obama are meritless; the constant argument that the presidency is nothing in the context of Trump's life is baloney. Once you're a president, you're remembered in history for being a president. Not for running The Apprentice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like this wording, it's matter-of-fact without rubbing salt on a contentious issue by unnecessarily saying that Trump "lost". Presumably it would replace the text "In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election." The wording suggested by El komodos drago works just as well in my view. Jr8825 • Talk 07:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jr8825. Volunteer Marek 04:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unless a reliable source that contradicts this claim can be found. As per my knowledge, such a source does not exist (and I am obviously discounting Breibart and similar). But I'd invite the opposing camp to provide such a source, in which case I would reconsider.Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Gotta go with Mandruss's reasoning, as stated above, on this. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we did it 4 years ago, in the Obama article? then we should do the same here. Otherwise, don't. FWIW - Biden was elected president of the United States, despite the Trump camp's 'desperate' claims. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, please don't tell me about the Electoral College not having voted yet & Congress not having certified yet, as I know all about that. Even though that would be a much better argument for the exclusionist, then their courts argument. SCOTUS doesn't decide US prez elections & as for 2000? It was the Gore camp that threw in the towel, because there wasn't enough time left to do over the Florida recount correctly. Either way, the result would've been the same - Bush winning. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jr8825. Mgasparin (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit/language updates

I note that the section "2020 presidential campaign" still has much of the text in the incorrect past-tense (unsure of the technical term): "have focused" rather than "focused", "has repeatedly" rather than "repeatedly", "Several sources described Trump's campaign message as shifting" perhaps "Several sources opined that the Trump campaign shifted" (or something like that; unsure of the use of weasel words), etc. Perhaps a general update is in order. While I am here, IMO that Trump has not yet conceded is of unprecedented, historical nature and should be noted, with "conceded" being an important word. e.g., WA Post, Guardian, USA Today. (Thx to everyone for all their attentiveness!) Bdushaw (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back under full protection. IMO while that is the case we should limit our protected-edit requests to things that are of urgent importance, not tweaks. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A defeated president conceding defeat is more-or-less a media creation. AFAIK, the early presidents like Adams, J.Q. Adams, Van Buren (for examples) haven't been recorded as conceding. Indeed, if Trump were to not attend Biden inauguration? that also wouldn't be a first, as both Adams's & A. Johnson didn't attend their successors inaugurals. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible until the electors meet. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the "Succeeded by" in the infobox? If so, I would support its removal at least until the succession is official (i.e. when the Electoral College votes). It's Succeeded by, not Projected to be succeeded by. "Succeeded" is past tense. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biden can't hold that title at the present because the electors have not yet voted. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is the president-elect; this is established in his own article too and is how he is described by all reliable sources. We described Trump as president-elect and included him as Obama's successor in Obama's article the day after the 2016 election, ages before the electoral college convened and before the votes were even counted.[7],[8] Judging by reliable sources it's an extremist fringe POV/conspiracy theory that Biden "isn't president-elect". It's standard practice in Wikipedia to include elected successors in the infobox with the qualification "elect". There is no reason to invent a new rule applied only to Biden just because Trump lost. --Tataral (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is the president-elect - no, he's the presumptive president-elect. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this article bound by editors' decisions in different situations at other articles. I never have, and I know of no policy that says it should be. In any case, if I had the time I could probably find articles where things weren't done the way you insist is the only way, and I'd be interested to know why Obama's article is the sole determiner for this article. That it was the most recent would be a weak reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there have been constant attempts over the last four years to portray Trump far more favourably in this article than he is usually portrayed by reliable sources, there is no need to deny reality and no need for this article to directly contradict the consensus version of the Joe Biden article and the consensus among the world's reliable sources, and to invent a new rule for Biden never before in Wikipedia's history applied to any other American president or president-elect (or, most likely, any other politician on the planet), including Trump in 2016. --Tataral (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus had been reached here to take the more conservative approach, before any consensus had been reached at Joe Biden, would you be arguing so strenuously that this article should determine Biden's content? If not, I call red herring. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a "conservative approach," it's a fringe POV. Biden is the president-elect, that is simply a fact for Wikipedia's purposes because reliable sources have established it and Wikipedia has established it through its consensus-making processes (on ITN, the Biden article and elsewhere), and the Donald Trump article should not be used as propaganda for a fringe POV the contradicts our own article on the president-elect, the ITN announcement on Wikipedia's own main page, and all the world's reliable sources. Everyone from Mitt Romney and Boris Johnson to Barack Obama and Angela Merkel have congratulated Biden as president-elect by now. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not determine the outcomes of elections and I stand by my position, prepared to be overridden by consensus as always. That's consensus here, not elsewhere. I suggest we wait for comments from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do determine the outcomes of elections as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and this issue has already been decided as far as Wikipedia is concerned through our normal consensus-making processes in numerous venues (including our main page). Further attempts to revive this conspiracy theory that Biden isn't really president-elect is a total waste of other editors' time and is likely to be viewed as disruptive. --Tataral (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tataral, WP:OR applies here. We must only include what reliable news sources include. Both sides agree on who the president-elect is.^[1] Gsquaredxc (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia declared Donald Trump President-Elect the day after the 2016 Election, I don't see a reason to depart from this practice for Biden. It doesn't matter whether or not Trump has conceded, reliable sources, like the AP, have called the election. Biden is now the President-Elect until Jan. 20, 2021 when he'll be inaugurated as President. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Biden is now the President-Elect is patently false, until the Electoral College votes. Until then, Biden is the presumptive president-elect. They are not the same thing, and, even if unlikely, it is within the realm of realistic possibility that the presumption will be proven wrong. We can't predict what courts might do with much certainty. The argument for inclusion is that we should ignore the "presumptive" factor because most sources are doing so. As for 2016, WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for inclusion is that we should ignore the "presumptive" factor because most sources are doing so. And that's a good reason for ignoring it. We follow Reliable Sources, remember? Our article does say some version of "news media called the election" rather than "he was elected", but otherwise we are treating him as the president-elect. As we have done with every previous president. Let it go, Mandruss. You may be technically correct, but WP:Verifiability, not truth, remember? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with MelanieN here, verifiability, not truth. ɱ (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn't "presumptive president-elect", he is president-elect because that is what RS call him. Also, let me quote another editor (Chrisvls) from Talk:Joe Biden: "It would seem out of step with the way the encyclopedia works to have us make a different call than a consensus of reliable sources. This seems especially true given the nature of the term President Elect, which is informal and there is even federal law that allows for the government to designate the president elect before the Electoral College vote. From our article: "The president-elect is the common or honorific title accorded to the person who conclusively appears to have won a presidential election in the United States [...]" In short, due the nature of the title President-elect, regular WP:RS rules apply" --Tataral (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of Wikipedia is what can be verified through other sources, then the term should be used because even Fox News is doing so. I assume other wiki-articles can't be sources, but I want to point out how President-elect of the United States says the term is for someone who appears to have won and doesn't say that the Electoral College has to vote before the term can be used. I like the way Aar phrased this on the Biden talk page: "Reliable sources consider Biden the president-elect. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is what he is." There are many sources to verify the use of the term: CNN, YouTube, WSJ, AP News, NPR, CBS, BBC, and so on. There are also sources that can be used to verify that Trump is trying to challenge the results, but even those sources often use the term 'president-elect' for Biden. 74.131.76.216 (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How about verifiability and truth? The term is codified in federal law as the apparent successful candidate for the office of President in an election. It directs the GSA to "ascertain" the apparent winner and provide transitional services to the President-elect.[9] See this term "apparent" when the Administrator of the GSA confirmed Barack Obama as president-elect the day after the election.[10] It has nothing to do with the Electoral College as suggested here. Also, as is clear from coverage of the current election, the GSA does not "declare" one the President-Elect, but merely ascertains it.[11] GreatCaesarsGhost 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GSA ascertains this for purposes of the transition act alone. O3000 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the term has both casual vernacular use and codified legal use, both which support Biden being P-E today. There is a suggestion presented by the IP that the P-E is the winner of the EC vote, but this is not supported by common use OR law. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we arguing about this specific section when the Wikipedia Page for Mike Pence has the section about "Vice President-Elect" Kamala Harris. If that can be put onto the page of Vice President Pence, why can't that be done for President Trump's page? User_talk:MyJunoBaldwin 17:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources including Fox News have named Biden president-elect. I agree, he should be in the successor category to POTUS. AjayTO (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this argument was had 4 years ago. If we want to be 100% accurate? then yes, only the electors themselves got elected on November 3. So far 279 Biden pledged electors & 217 Trump pledged electors, with 42 left to be decided. Do we wanna wait until December 14 for the Electoral College to do the actual voting for president & vice president? then Congress certifying it all on January 6? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point in time it is going to hard to deny reality. Joe Biden is the president-elect. Yes Trump has decided to challenge the results in courts but a huge majority of them have been thrown out/dismissed due to lack of evidence. There are zero signs that Trump is going to win re-election. None. Everybody at this point in time has accepted it. Even Wikipedia has. The President-elect page for instance has Joe Biden as president-elect, There is a page dedicated to Biden's inauguration,etc... . World Leaders, Politicians, and many others have already come to accept Biden as the 46th president. I don't see why we should wait for the next year when the result is painfully obvious. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should include the elect because Biden is going to be the next president. Whether we like it or not. Pentock (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "succeeded by" field should be removed from Trump's infobox, as he is still the U.S. President and has not yet been succeeded by anyone. DanJWilde (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes almost always include prospective successors when they are known. If you rewind to 2016 I'm almost certain you'll find the same thing happened on Obama's article when the result was called by all major media outlets. - 2A01:4B00:86C4:B800:3D89:6477:D59:D57F (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not make it right. I would rather wait till it is official.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's infobox did not name Donald Trump as his successor until Trump was inaugurated. I agree with Slatersteven that the result is not yet official. I may be wrong but I feel as if I have read somewhere on here that successors should not be named in infoboxes until they formally succeed (although I accept that I may be wrong - this may just be for dates). I believe edits made to Shinzo Abe's infobox when Yoshihide Suga was named as his successor were reverted for this reason. DanJWilde (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel inclined to agree with the issue raised. Despite recent events, it's also quite clear in the infobox that Trump assumed office in 2017, not 2016 when he won the last election. It's not appropriate for the successor to already be noted until they are sworn in. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama the day after the 2016 election. --Tataral (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should act "Designate". As Trump still not concede the election.Marxistfounder (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Trump ever concedes is irrelevant. But, I agree that he is still president and there has not yet been a succession. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have to concede, he just has to be officially told "your fired".Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates #"President Elect". I still support removal of "Succeeded by" for now, per my comments there. The opposing arguments have merit but are not enough to change my stubborn mind. (I was advised to stand down by an editor who has earned my respect, and I was prepared to do so until I saw this thread). Likely but not certainly, the field will be in the infobox within a month or two regardless, so we're probably only debating what should happen before then. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A grammar argument: The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense, suggesting that the succession has already happened. Since it has not yet happened, IMO we should not put a name there until the president-elect has actually become the president. As for the current situation, the article is still locked, but we may be approaching consensus to remove Biden's name from the "succeeded by" box. That will be up to whatever uninvolved administrator evaluates this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily accurate from a grammar point of view. In English past, tense can also designate a-temporal or defined situations. For example in the sentence 'cold air fronts are generally succeded by warm air fronts' etc... So past in this use, as in the 'succeded by' does not necessarily mean past in the sense of time.Eccekevin (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do you keep changing your position as to this field and the use of caution more generally? The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense Beat you by 19 hours.[12] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here. DanJWilde (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has consensus not already been reached though? I am fairly new to Wikipedia's processes. DanJWilde (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a fairly fuzzy concept, with opinions often varying. My opinion is that we are short of a consensus to remove, considering the strong opposition at #"President Elect". If the field had not been already added, we would be short of a consensus to add it, but that's how it goes sometimes. Actually I'm not clear how it got added without consensus, given #Page protection, but I'll resist the urge to wikilawyer this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Regardless of who anyone in the country thinks won the election, Trump is objectively still the president until at least January 20 and is able to direct and carry out any laws until then. We can put “succeeded by” at the time when he is actually succeeded, when (presumably) Biden is sworn in Anon0098 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's own article names him as president-elect but this article gives the impression the election is still in play. I think WP:BOLD action is in order. JJARichardson (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be removed. It is standard practice in Wikipedia, and has been for as long as infoboxes have been around, to include the elected successor as "succeeded by" with the appropriate qualification (e.g. "elect"). This is what we did for Trump and Obama the day after the 2016 election too. There is no reason to invent a new rule only applied to Biden. In the context of the infobox, "succeeded by" can mean both "[has been] succeeded by" or "[will be, is scheduled to be etc.] succeeeded by". The inclusion of the president-elect is useful information that readers are interested in. --Tataral (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed pending consensus to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox officeholder: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article gives equal weight to the competing narratives that Biden won the election and the election has not been settled. Regardless of what the infobox template says, listing the successor when known happens virtually every time. Omitting it now is a biased choice that does not reflect reliable sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

listing the successor when known happens virtually every time - Here are two alternative rebuttals, take your pick. (It's unfortunate that process is still so unclear after 19 years, but I don't run the place (also unfortunate).)

• That argues that practice supersedes guidance, and that the guidance simply needs updating to reflect practice. That might work if the precedent discussions considered the guidance and rejected it, but that has not been shown. More likely, editors were simply not aware of the guidance, which is easily missed at the bottom of the doc's lead rather than being attached to the |successor= parameter description.
• The template guidance represents a community consensus that cannot be overridden by local consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL. The precedents are simply wrong and carry no weight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article deviates significantly from reliable sources in its coverage of the election result (i.e. the fact that Biden won the election) and the fact that Biden is the president-elect; instead it treats the election result as unclear at best by giving equal weight (WP:FALSEBALANCE) to fringe "alternative facts", unlike all the world's reliable sources. Of course, this is nothing new, as I can attest to after four years of arguing on and off, mostly in vain, for a more mainstream coverage of Trump based on how he is usually covered by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to end discussion, but there is also no reason not to start a Survey section, and I will do so below. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we apply consensus to Mike Pence's page? I started the same argument over there regarding VP-elect Kamala Harris. -- Tytrox (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tytrox: First, there is no resolution here yet. If there is a consensus here, it won't be binding there (I assume that's what you meant), although it could be presented as part of an argument there and editors there could agree or disagree. For better or worse, there is no policy or guideline that the articles must be consistent with each other. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: That's fair. Just thought I'd table it anyway, just due to virtually same circumstances. -- Tytrox (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Hi, GW! Sorry to bother you, but I'm hoping to get an interim ruling on this question of whether to put Biden in the infobox as successor, or not. We do not seem to have a consensus one way or the other by head count (I get five to include, seven to omit); the arguments on the omit side cite wikipedia guidelines, and on the include side, call it a common-sense argument; both are valid. But I wondered if you can give us a guideline on what the status of the article should be while the question is debated? I ask because people are continuing to add it and remove it. If we had an interim guideline we could put an invisible comment in the field. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely no consensus at the moment. Whether that means we should omit the field pending consensus to add, or include it pending consensus to remove, I'm not sure, but I do agree we should pick one and add it to a hidden comment to try to end the warring. Perhaps other uninvolved admins watching this page have thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a hidden comment, as of this edit. I'll be very interested to see the rationale for including hotly disputed content that not only lacks consensus but would go against the slight trend now extant. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that hidden comment—per User:Awilley's comment just now below it seems he is going with "omit pending consensus to add", which makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: "Succeeded by" field

Omit or include.

• Omit per {{Infobox officeholder}} guidance:

  The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place.

  Arguments that we should disregard that long-standing guidance are uncompelling. Editors arguing that the guidance needs updating to reflect common practice are welcome to try that and see if the community accepts it. If they are successful, I will support inclusion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include the successor is consistently listed across the project. There is a clear benefit to including it and a clear detriment to omitting it. We are not obligated to follow any rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. It is inherently suspicious that we should seek to deviate from longstanding practice at this moment where such a choice endorses (intentionally or not) a bad faith argument about Biden's status as the successor . GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit per Mandruss and the fact that if Biden were to (heaven forbid) pass away, resign, refuse to take office for family/health reasons, faithless electors make it so neither Trump or Biden have 270... there's tons of situations in which Biden will not succeed Trump. The successor field should not be filled out until the person has actually succeeded. It's not called "likely to succeed", it's called "successor", and to this day, Biden has not yet succeeded Trump. Discussion as to whether the field should be renamed or another field added of "expected successor" or similar may very well happen, but until that time, it is inaccurate to call Biden the successor of Trump until the oath of office is taken and Biden is officially president. What is/was done on other articles does not mean we must make the same mistakes again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to put some arguments here for/against WP:OTHERSTUFF since people seem to be arguing "but we've always done it when the election's called" - Obama's article didn't have him listed as the successor in late December because he hadn't been inaugurated yet, nor did George W Bush. It seems there's actually an ultimate precedent for not putting succeeded by until the inauguration. I'm unwilling to go back past 2008 because the prior would've been.. well, 2000, which is... not available. Long story short, for those arguing "precedent", I encourage you to actually go look because your "precedents" are actually not what you think they are. Any vote that argues per "precedent" or similar should be interpreted to omit - because precedent is to omit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been brought up a few times that the precedent seems to differ between presidents' articles and other offices in the US. I agree with some others that a wider (centralized possibly) RFC would be useful, but until that time, given that the template documentation has not been questioned in a long time and seems to be followed when it's brought up from what I can see, I feel we should honor that. I just figured I'd make clear that my view is the same even after it's been brought up that there is discrepancy between the history of presidents' articles and that of other offices, and add my support for if someone wants to make a wider RFC. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include because it needs to be added. And the bottom paragraph "In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election." needs to be changed immediately, because it's completely misrepresenting what is already a decided result. The polls are already in.. I don't see why there are so many mods on here trying to delegitimize the result of the election on this article. Quite frankly I think more than one person on here should have their editing privileges removed, because they're clearly coordinating to delegitimize the electoral system. Saying that there are multiple ways in which Biden couldn't succeed Trump is NOT an argument to sow doubt that Biden won the election. That much has been decided based off the number of votes Biden got in Pen, AZ and Nevada. I don't see why it's so hard for people to comprehend basic math, but Biden IS the President Elect. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Word to the wise: Just state your argument and save the accusations and aspersions. A pattern of such will get you topic-banned or blocked. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note also that winning an election does not mean someone has succeeded another as an officeholder. I don't personally think the debate over "who won" is even relevant here. He has not succeeded Trump until he assumes office - period. The result also hasn't been decided yet - that happens when the electors officially vote. As happened in 2016, I think there's going to be at least a few faithless electors who vote for random people like Ted Cruz or something. Regardless, someone does not succeed another until they assume the position - not simply when they're offered the position, or when they accept the position, but when they assume the position. Again, a discussion over changing the field/display to reference "eventual successor" or something is an argument to be had in a different place. Trump is still the president for another ~2 months, after which time (assuming nothing changes) Biden will be added as the successor and an end date to Trump's term as president be added. I think you've conflated "the election" with "the office" here - nobody here in this section so far has disputed or "delegitimized" the outcome of the election - and that's not what this section is even about. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit per @Mandruss:'s argument. The officeholder infobox template is clear. -- Tytrox (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit As posted by User:Mandruss above, the infobox guidance for officeholders specifically forbids mentioning a successor, or an end date of their term. until the transition has actually happened. IMO this settles the question and there is nothing more to say. On the suggestion to include it in the infobox, we don't. We leave it out. If people want to discuss adding a sentence about the expected succession to the text, maybe that should become the subject of a separate discussion, but the infobox question appears to be settled per Wikipedia guidelines. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. It's undisputed that he is the president-elect, as far as reliable sources are concerned; even George W. Bush has congratulated him as president-elect. We included Trump in Obama's article the day after the 2016 election and it's standard practice to include the successor-elect. Also, this article (Donald Trump) should be consistent with the information in other articles including the article on the president-elect, what we announced on the main page and the consensus among RS, and not push a fringe conspiracy theory that Biden didn't win the election. --Tataral (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Tataral: As my information above shows, this was in dispute and the result was that it was not included in the infobox until the inauguration itself on that article. Whether it was added does not matter - whether it had consensus to be added to that article does. There are lots of things in any president's article that were added at some point or another - including BLP violations and death threats - and the use of the fact that they were added at one point while ignoring that they were later removed with consensus for not including them would be a very slippery slope. I agree with some others on this page that a larger centralized RFC - not limited to the USA - would be useful to clarify how Wikipedia should handle this - but until that time, the precedent is to not include until the succession happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit Trump has not been succeeded by Biden, he will be succeeded by him. The wording suggests that Trump is no longer president. In the last edit for Barack Obama's article before his term expired, there was no entry for "Succeeded by."[13] There is a discussion about this at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 81#Should Trump be listed in the Infobox as Obama's successor? The same reasoning applies here. TFD (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. For God's sake this is what we're discussing now? Instead of improving the article, we chose to lock it away from further improvements and arguing over negligible things like this? Just change the word "succeeded by" with "will be succeeded by" or "successor (presumptive)". I know this is democracy, some of you just want your voices heard (or cannot bear your candidate's loss, so you fell into bias-land), but the topic is just plain stupid. This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated. Per WP:IAR, I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We are not obligated to follow any rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 08:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is simple matter, please don't make it complicated. I couldn't agree more. Follow guidelines unless you can make a case for a single-instance exception to them. If you disagree with a guideline or feel it no longer reflects common practice, seek to change it. There is nothing "complicated" about that, and it's the approach that best promotes site-wide consistency (which, I would argue, is a Good Thing for the encyclopedia). IAR is meant to allow exceptions to the PAGs, not to allow blanket disregard for one because we disagree with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit per Mandruss. Some states are still counting, there are recount challenges in several states, there are legal challenges all over the place (absurd and unlikely to succeed but still happening), the Electoral College doesn't vote for a few weeks and Republicans are actively campaigning for electors to ignore the popular vote, there's a sound theory that Trump will resign before transition in which case he'll be succeeded by Pence (as I understand it); there's a lot of dust to settle yet and it's far too soon for Wikipedia to say this is a sure thing. I'd personally be more confident adding succession after the Electoral College votes, as the situation is likely to be substantially more stable at that point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion If the "Omit" votes prevail here you may want to put some hidden text in the infobox code asking people not to add Joe Biden yet and explaining why. Judging by the way things have gone in the past, I suspect the longer you try to enforce this the more difficult it will become. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Any consensus here will probably warrant a #Current consensus item, and common practice at this article is to do as you say, including a pointer to the list item. Once done, enforcement is easy and 1RR-exempt. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit - Per Mandruss. This seems fairly cut and dry. PackMecEng (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - We do this for all political offices, when a successor has been elected. WHY do it differently here & now? PS: I must confess, I came close to using profanity, when I noticed some of you trying to exclude the field. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because as Mandruss points out, per {{Infobox officeholder}} The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. PackMecEng (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look around you. There's hundreds of such articles which do include the designated successor. Just please, stop trying to make one article different from the rest. It's damn annoying. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples might help but otherwise that is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't do it when Bush or Obama were still in office.[14][15] Trump's designated successor incidentally is Vice President Mike Pence. Should Trump leave office before his term expires, Pence would become president. TFD (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - Wikipedia should not give in to attacks, we should continue to follow WP:NOTTRUTH standards like we always do. Consistency removes bias from Wikipedia. In a time like this, Wikipedia is continuously being searched for inconsistencies. Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency would be not including the end of term nor successor until Trump leaves office upon Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021. This is how it has been done for Trump (when he succeeded Obama) and Obama (when he succeeded Bush). If you are arguing for consistency, you are arguing against inclusion. Your bold not-vote does not align with your explanation. Please clarify. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - note that @Mandruss: has just breached the 1RR restriction on this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Mandruss and User:GoodDay, CUT IT OUT! Do you want to get the article locked again? Edit warring over this very issue was the reason it was reinstated last time. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And GoodDay, you were in the wrong. As the kids say on the playground, you started it. You should not have added it while the issue was under discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User talk:GoodDay#November 2020. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Note: I've partial-blocked GoodDay from this article. I didn't block Mandruss because when I removed the 1RR restriction earlier today I specifically said, "If I see [edit warring] 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." Mandruss AFAICT was reverting toward the status quo, towards the apparent consensus (the vote was 7-4 for omit at the time by my count), and was using good edit summaries. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include—Pennsylvania if they don't do a recount will make Biden win with 279 votes. 290 if he wins Arizona. It's reasonable to say that and if faithless electors crash the election that will quickly be shut down. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit I thought this was a cut and dry include, but Mandruss and Ivanvector convince me otherwise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit, as per the arguments above. It seems Trump has made this an issue for the first time. But we don't need to bend the rules because he is trying to.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per GreatCaesarsGhost and GoodDay.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, with extreme prejudice. In every Wikipedia article that mentions the 2020 election, it says that Biden won. Why? Because that's what all reliable sources say. Such sources also all say that Trump's allegations of fraud have no basis in fact. If they say that Biden is the president-elect, we have to say that, and thus, that he will succeed Trump. And, even if you think that the election isn't over or that Trump has a shot at appealing this, it would still be objectively inconsistent to hold out on mentioning that in the infobox, yet to state everywhere else on the site that Biden is pres-elect. In other words, if you, like the reliable sources we trust, think that the election is over, then the choice is clear. If you think that it's not over, then we have to reevaluate every article about 2020 on all of Wikipedia. I imagine no one is in favor of that, so we should include this. Cpotisch (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This issue is not to do about the election results. If you read up a bit, it's about whether when to put up Biden's name as the Successor based on when he takes up Office. The infobox template clearly states that the successor should not be documented until the handover is done. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox? The point of designating someone “-elect” is that they haven’t assumed the office yet. The consensus on hundreds of other pages seems to be that if the media projects a winner, then, in the eyes of a Wikipedia, that person is the [whatever office]-elect, even without the state certifying the result. Why would it be different here? Either every other page is wrong, or this one is. Cpotisch (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how come every single candidate who lost re-election this month has their successor listed in their infobox? Well, my best guess is that editors there were not aware of the template guidance. If they had been, I think most of them would have supported omission because they believe in generally following guidelines for the sake of site-wide consistency. That's been my experience. The guidance is oddly placed at the end of the template doc's lead, rather than as part of the |successor= parameter description, so it could be easily missed even by editors who know about template doc and how to view it.

  Either every other page is wrong, or this one is. Agree, and I'd say the former. As I've said previously, if any editor believes that a large number of errors resulting from editor unawareness (as opposed to fully informed decisions) means they are no longer errors, they are free to seek to change the template doc to reflect that. Until that is successful, my preference is to follow the doc, not the errors (and correcting the errors would not be an enormous task). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, Template documentation does not constitute a policy or guideline, and just because some random bit of text at the bottom of the doc says something that doesn't trump (pun unintended!) actual usage in articles. If all other successors for other posts have already been filled in, then this one should be too, for consistency. And also consistency with what I believe happened on Obama's page when Trump was elected.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If template parameter usage guidance does not have the same status as a guideline, it serves exactly no purpose or function, represents a significant waste of editor time, and should not exist. In my experience editors who are aware of such guidance treat it as guidelines, understanding that it's the only way to coordinate site-wide consistency in template parameter usage (particularly infobox fields). If we feel site-wide consistency is a worthwhile goal, and I believe we do, the only way to get editors on the same page is to have a common, central place to go for that kind of information. Template doc is that place. Clearly, it would be unreasonable to expect editors to conduct a survey of all existing |successor= parameter usage to determine what they should do. In this case, it's even worse: an editor would have to conduct a survey of all |successor= parameter usage between elections and transitions, researching edit histories and old revisions. That would be utterly unworkable, and something only Wikipedia could come up with (or only en-wiki; I don't know whether, say, the Germans have more sense). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – how much precedent is there for this in articles on political officeholders? If there is already an uncontroversial (albeit technically incorrect) consensus within this field to use infoboxes this way, then it seems like a good case for WP:IAR (and updating the template guidance), as it's beneficial to the reader. I was going to vote for including, but I'm unsure from reading above exactly what the history is on US presidential articles – did this dispute originate over content (whether someone actually is the president-elect) or has there been past disagreement over using infoboxes this way? Jr8825 • Talk 11:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My read of the discussion so far, and I've done no research of my own, is as follows. There is apparently wide precedent for inclusion for politicians in general, but precedent for omission for U.S. presidents, per this comment. There is no reason for U.S. presidents to be a special case, so I would say precedent favors inclusion overall.

  As I've said, I'll support inclusion if the template doc is successfully changed to allow inclusion. As I haven't said, I would be on the opposition side as to such a change, as I would prefer to be "technically" correct. I think the existing guidance makes more sense than the precedents. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, we should Omit the 'succeeded by' field here, for now, as there isn't a consensus on using it for US presidents, and we would need a broader discussion on whether it's appropriate to call a future officeholder a successor (and a consensus in favour) in order to overrule this. I do think this conversation needs to be had sooner rather than later, should we open a discussion at the village pump? A lack of consistency among politicians' infoboxes is not a good thing, especially as it could easily appear as if we're specifically avoiding calling Biden successor given the current controversy. Jr8825 • Talk 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a neutrally-framed RfC is in order, but I would do it at Template talk:Infobox officeholder and advertise it in various other talk venues including WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. It will probably run for at least 30 days, and then might have to wait for weeks for an uninvolved closer, so this discussion should not wait for that outcome. If that outcome differs from this outcome, this article can be changed at that time with little discussion necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a pre-RfC subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit obviously. Frankly I'm surprised there are editors who want to jump the gun on this. To my mind, this is something that should happen at or after the moment of succession, which is still 70-odd days away. It is important to understand that this field has nothing to do with the results of the election. It should not be predictive or anticipatory, because like the rest of the article it is supposed to reflect what has happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include obviously. We know who Trump's successor will be, and we can and should include (elect) or similar to indicate that this is provisional at the moment. There is no reason why US presidents should be an exception to the widely-used convention in this respect, and it looks downright odd to be omitting the successor from the infobox when it's already known who it will be.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Wikipedia isn't meant to be predicting the future. We all think Biden will be President, but we don't know for sure because something could happen in the 70-odd days between now and the inauguration. BLPs are supposed to be written from the historical perspective in the past tense. There's no reason why this cannot wait until January 20. This is how it should be on all BLPs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include obviously. I think we need to take into account that the page for Vice President Mike Pence has the "succeeded by" field on the page with mention of Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. If that page can have the "succeeded by" field, what is there to argue that President Trump's page cannot have such a field. That being said, I understand concern about a possible recount maybe changing the electoral map, but at this point it is very unlikely that any lawsuits would change such a result. I hope this statement can be understood. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Pence article is not set in stone. One could argue with equal strength that Pence should be consistent with Trump, once we have a resolution here. Has there been anything approaching this amount of discussion participation about this at Pence? If not, how could Pence possibly carry more weight? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the link to the "Pence" talk page discussion about this specific issue you're asking about Talk:Mike Pence#Remove "Succeeded by" information based on VP-elect Kamala Harris. It is not as robust (or, frankly, as "bigly") as this page's discussion. But someone did use the example of the Obama-Trump discussion, which I believe is linked in this page as well. MyJunoBaldwin (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, that discussion is a tiny fraction of this one, involves far fewer editors, and represents far less scrutiny of the question. It would make no sense for that to govern the content at this article, or even influence it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include obviously. It is a disservice to the reader not to include this obvious fact. Also 1) the infobox guidlines are not laws, and as all guidelines they need to meet the moment 2) the Barack Obama and Donald Trump precedent exists and should be followed. The election result was clear then and it is now. Eccekevin (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is standard practice to do this, as you can see by pretty much all pages of House and Senate members, regardless of the guidlines. I think another option would be to add (elect) or (designate) in brackets to add clarity, for example as it is on Mark Meadows page in reference to Madison CawthornEccekevin (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The RfC is now open at: Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Interim use of successor=. Please participate there. This discussion should not wait for that outcome, and this article can be changed with no fuss if that outcome is different. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit in this instance. This follows the precedent set election Obama's 2008 election and Trump's 2016 election. I would note that in the U.S., the transition between presidents takes considerably longer than in other countries, so presidents-elect should be handled differently than their counterparts elsewhere. -- Calidum 15:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit While Biden will become President on January 20, 2021, the succeeded by section should not be added now per precedent and to avoid confusion. Also WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include: we should must follow historical precedent, including but not limited to AP calling elections since 1848, rather than entertain a “flood the zone with shit” disinformation effort that was relentlessly telegraphed for many months by a president and his surrogates/supporters who have abundantly demonstrated their fondness for conspiracy theories and what can be charitably called preposterous falsehoods. We’re not here to assuage anyone’s hurt feelings. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soibangla: Historical precedent is that one is not succeeded until their successor takes office. Wikipedia precedent is the same (as evidenced multiple times in this discussion). Thus, as I've said before, your not-vote is actually against inclusion of it until noon EST on January 20, 2021. I encourage you to either revisit your comment and provide a rationale that actually supports your bolded not-vote or reconsider it altogether, as your comment right now appears attempting to right great wrongs while ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and precedent. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty clear WP:RGW kind of argument. Wikipedia should report on politics and government, not get involved in them, no matter how righteous the goal. Anyway, no one is suggesting the article should deny Biden has been declared president-elect – that can and probably should be done in prose – the question is how we should use a context-free infobox field. So I'll call straw man on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position has nothing to do with RGW or a strawman soibangla (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include: I always find it useful so you can easily click to whoever is next in line. As far as I know this has always been done, why should it be different for Joe Biden? Johndavies837 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johndavies837: Your premise is incorrect, and your question has already received several answers. Feel free to read existing discussion. Or, you can just move on and your !vote will be given equal weight anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RfC: "Succeeded by" field

It is reported by several sources today that Biden plans to reverse many of Trump's signature policy actions sometime before dinner on 1/21. We should consider how this will be handled in the article and its presentation of Trump's achievements and legacy. See, e.g. Biden plans immediate flurry of executive orders to reverse Trump policies. Also Biden Could Roll Back Trump Agenda With Blitz of Executive Actions SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be appropriate once said reversals happen. Right now it's only speculation, and nothing is certain. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to be careful to avoid original reporting. -- Tytrox (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section desperately needs a revision, because it's blatantly trying to undermine the result of the election. The media didn't project anything - they used the data that was given to them by the states, which determined based on the counted ballots that Biden won Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia - thus winning him the election. I don't know if basic math is beyond some people with the right to edit this article, or if you have an agenda that would imply an intent to misinform readers in the article - but this is nothing if not a misrepresentation of facts. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that one of these options would be OK.

• Option A - In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump was defeated by former vice president Joe Biden.
• Option B - In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election to former vice president Joe Biden.

I personally prefer Option A, but if you have more ideas, they are always welcome. Interstellarity (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I was suggesting at all. It needs to be stated clearly and definitively that Trump lost the election, because he did. The states in which Biden won have a margin of difference based on the counted ballots that make it very clear that Biden won the election. To imply at all that it was "news outlets" that declared Biden the winner is again, misrepresenting the facts.

Option A2 - In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Trump lost his bid for re-election to former vice president Joe Biden.

Option B2 - In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Trump was defeated by former vice president Joe Biden.

Those are the only clear options. It's a small change but it's a needed one, especially right now when there are still parties trying to undermine the result of an election that - has been decided, sans a few states that haven't finished voting but wouldn't give Trump the electoral votes needed to win. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but the IP editor is mistaken. Media outlets are projecting Biden as the winner, because at present, per the rules of a US election (as I have seen on the Guardian) he is not technically the winner until counts are completed and the Electoral College makes its votes. Remember, per the US democractic process, the popular votes does not dictate the winner - it dictates how the Electoral College in each state votes: if Democrats win the state, that college votes for their candidate, and vice versa. There are exceptions - both Nebraska and Maine have given a vote to the opposing candidate that didn't win that state. Let me clarify more with this extract from the Guardian's current live blog:

"Although Democratic nominee Joe Biden is now president-elect Joe Biden, there are still quite a few steps left in the US electoral process. He is projected to win, but a few more things have to take place before it becomes official. Here’s what happens now, and when it has to be done by.

When American citizens vote for a presidential candidate, they really are voting for electors in their state. Those electors in most cases are committed to support the voters’ candidate of choice. The number of electors is equal to the number of electoral votes held by each state.

8 December: this is the deadline for resolving election disputes at the state level. All state recounts and court contests over presidential election results are to be completed by this date.

14 December: electors vote by paper ballot in their respective state capitols and also in the District of Columbia, which while it is the seat of the US government, is not actually a state. Thirty-three states and DC have laws or party regulations requiring electors to vote the same way the popular vote goes in the state. In some states, electors can even be replaced or subjected to penalties if they do not toe the line. An elector who doesn’t vote according to who won the popular vote is known as a “faithless elector”. The votes for president and vice-president are counted and the electors sign six “certificates of the vote”. The certificates, along with other official papers, are sent by registered mail to various officials, including the president of the Senate.

23 December: the certificates must be delivered to the designated officials.

6 January 2021: the House and Senate hold a joint session to count the electoral votes. If one ticket has received 270 or more electoral votes, the president of the Senate, currently vice-president Mike Pence, announces the results."

Thus the line "Biden is projected to win" or "Trump is projected to lose" is currently correct, in terms of the stage the election process is in. GUtt01 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the indenting is going in this thread so sorry for my likely violation of MOS:LISTGAP here, please anyone feel free to fix. Having said that, Option B1 - i.e. "projected" and "lost his bid". Elections are not contests in which one person is "battling" another. Biden did not "defeat" Trump - while that's a common way of referring to it, what happened is Trump lost the election. The American citizens are the ones who voted and their actions are what caused Trump's loss - not any direct action of Biden. Some may argue that it's semantics, and sure, it is - but this entire section is arguing the semantics of whether "lost his bid to" or "was defeated by" is better/more accurate - and "lost his bid for reelection" is more accurate. It's also clearer to people who don't speak English as a first language - where the word "defeated" suggests a personal contest, whereas "lost his bid for reelection to" does not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, after multiple further projections and multiple resolutions to lawsuits, A2/B2 are better, and I prefer B2 without the "defeated" word, per my struck rationale above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The media does not determine who wins or loses; the electoral college decides. Thus the current wording is more correcting than declaring he objectively won or lost. Saying he lost would be "misrepresenting" as you claim Anon0098 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the electoral college does decide. And did. It's literally at the point where there is no conceivable way Trump could win because the ballots are pretty much all counted in the states that put Biden over the 270 threshold, thus Biden has been declared the president elect. The media didn't declare or decide anything - the electoral college did. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? They vote on Dec. 14 Anon0098 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of what "won the election" refers to is interesting but irrelevant; we are required to go by what the sources say, and they are unanimous in treating the election of the electoral college the event that decides the election. If you think they are incorrect to do so, you should write letters to them requesting retractions or corrections, but until they do so we have to reflect their coverage, which essentially unanimously states that Trump lost on Nov 3rd when his electors were defeated (even if it took a while for that fact to become clear.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did we wait to list Trump as Obama's successor? No. He was declared the winner unanimously by virtually every editor on here, and the article reflects such. Go back to the revision history and you can see for yourself. The rules don't suddenly chance because you don't like the result this time. This is how every president-elect has been treated on this site since it's conception - we edit accordingly, with the information we have. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "major news organizations have projected" is unfortunate because it makes the election result seem more uncertain than reliable sources have reported. We should simply state that he lost the election to Biden because that is what reliable sources state. Everyone from Boris Johnson to George W. Bush have now congratulated president-elect Biden, and it's a fringe conspiracy theory, nothing more, that Biden isn't president-elect. --Tataral (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tataral Agreed. | MK17b | (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proposal to say that Biden isn't president-elect, so that's a straw man. The proposal, or one of them, is to avoid saying outright, until it's official, that Trump lost. I disagree with your assessment of what that omission would imply. I hear the RS argument loud and clear, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion per policy. And don't make me invoke WP:IAR, since I hate doing that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it was done improperly before. That's not an excuse to do that again. And no, if you look at the history of Barack Obama's article you'll find that even multiple days after the election was called it wasn't present in the infobox. So in fact, if you want to argue "we did it before", we actually didn't. And you'll note that even on December 30, 2016, Trump was still not listed as the successor. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to deletion discussions, not article content; we are in fact supposed to make some effort to follow precedent when it comes to decisions like this - otherwise we run afoul of WP:DUE by eg. placing undue emphasis on one thing over another. Also, the successor listing isn't what's being discussed here; the appropriate comparison is when HRC's article was updated to indicate she had lost, which was almost immediately; this is the way we have handled every single previous election (see my collection of links below.) More generally, we are required to reflect what the sources say, and they are straightforwardly saying that Trump was lost, not presenting it as a matter of debatable opinion or a mere inference. Turning a statement of fact into "the news says..." is an inappropriate way to introduce WP:NPOV violations by casting doubt on factual statements. --Aquillion (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Trump's legal maneuvering has exactly zero chance of success is opinion, not fact – particularly for people who know little to nothing about (1) what the maneuvers will be, and (2) the relevant law. It is within policy for us to choose to use unqualified wiki voice here, and it's also within policy for us to choose to be accurate about fact, provided we remain verifiable. You are overstating your case, methinks, by saying the latter choice would be a clear policy violation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stylistic points: I don't think we should use the word "election" or some form of it more than once in the same sentence. Secondly, saying that Trump "lost his bid for re-election to" Biden makes it sound like Biden was "re-elected" in his place. Trump failed in his bid. Trump lost to Biden. He didn't lose his bid to Biden. I know what is meant but it sounds strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just thought I'd add that if you look at the discussion at Talk:President-elect of the United States, you'll see this exact debate about when you can call some a President-elect (whether you have to wait for the electoral college) happened in 2008 and 2016. Seems like a perennial issue that maybe we should launch an RfC and decide before 2024. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak option B2 - to me it seems strange to avoid saying that Trump has lost the election. For example, the Joe Biden article's lead already says "Having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election, he will be inaugurated as the 46th president on January 20, 2021. Are there any RS even disputing the fact that Trump has lost the election? However, I think the suggestion above is a better alternative. Jr8825 • Talk 07:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has lost reelection, as clearly stated in the relevant article. Massaging this fact may placate his followers, but doing so is not encyclopedic as it muddies the waters for the wider readership. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:6852:6195:FDF4:DD65 (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A2 or, failing that, B2, since the reliable sources are unanimous at this point (and not just the news; all reputable sources discussing the election are stating it.) Note that back in 2016 his article was updated to declare him president-elect in the article voice by the end of the day of the election, as soon as sources started widely referring to him as such; Hillary Clinton's article was likewise updated within a day of the election to indicate she had been defeated, as was Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, and John Kerry's - that is to say that every single US Presidential election that has ended while Wikipedia was in operation was handled that way. Strenuous opposition to options A or B because they plainly violate WP:NPOV by reporting a widely-covered fact as if it were a mere attributed opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A2 or B2 which are statements of fact based on reliable sources. We are doing a serious disservice to readers and objectivity as long as the article remains unamended. JJARichardson (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have any news organisation denies Donny lost?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A. Most accurate, verifiable, within the discretion afforded us by policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A2 (but with "re-election" unhyphenated). This statement is the most accurate and unambiguous and follows historical precedent set on Wikipedia. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:49B1:9C8E:FC66:DEA6 (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A2 or B2. All reliable sources unanimously agree on the result of the election. On the Charles Darwin page we don't say 'all sources concur that he was born in 1809'; we say 'he was born in 1809'. If there is unanimous agreement among all reliable sources, Wikipedia presents the facts as they are. When the Electors convene, this can be rephrased.Eccekevin (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to remain neutral with regard to withholding the declaration that Trump lost the election until it has been verified by the official electoral college votes in December. Also, I appreciate that it is not being denied by those in charge that Biden is in fact the president-elect. However, in this case, choosing this neutrality helps spread misinformation because making this issue a debate undermines democracy. This is because it gaslights people into thinking that the election was stolen, and that Biden did not win. The truth is that Biden won the election, and this is not my opinion. It is a fact, verified by multiple media outlets, as well as world leaders who have recognized Biden as the next president, including Boris Johnson, a right-wing leader resembling Trump himself. Additionally, I see a double standard compared to 2016, when Wikipedia did not wait until the electors officially cast their votes in December to declare that Hillary Clinton lost and that Trump would succeed Obama as the next president.

Therefore, those in charge here need to understand that waiting until the electors have cast their votes to declare Biden the winner, saying that the media projects Biden will win, as opposed to saying that he won, and other forms of neutrality with regard to this issue are just as complicit in spreading misinformation and undermining democracy as overtly stating that Biden is not the next president.

Again, I understand why neutrality is important. It stops the spread of misinformation and helps weed out bias. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them, for in this case, being neutral helps spread misinformation and allows bias that favors Trump’s claims that the election was stolen to persist. I therefore politely implore those in charge here to reconsider their neutral stance in this instance. I’m looking at you, Mandruss. Ascarboro97 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I almost missed your reference to me, at the end of that long comment without a ping. I'll stand by my !vote, but worry not. Clearly, the prevailing sentiment is to use Wikipedia as a tool to help stop Trump's obstructive belligerence and pave the way for a smooth transition for the sake of the country. I understand people's desire to do that, but in my opinion it is not an appropriate use of an encyclopedia that should be dispassionate and apolitical. We should report about politics, not create content to help achieve desirable outcomes. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A2 or B2. We must match the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources; the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect reality as the sources report it. Neutrality^talk 14:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is the first US president to (1) lose the popular vote (twice), (2) be impeached AND (3) fail to win reelection. Please add this noteworthy accomplishment to the lede. 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:6852:6195:FDF4:DD65 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Sounds like piling on. O3000 (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, the lead is a summery of the article, not a newspaper style leader.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean all 3 combined? Or seperately? Please note all those things have happened before. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combined, hence "AND." 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:49B1:9C8E:FC66:DEA6 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mom used to be a Boolean operator. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the laws of probability, there are many expressions of the form X AND Y AND Z that are uniquely true about Trump. For example, Trump is the first US president who (1) is male AND (2) plays golf AND (3) is named Donald. Unless commentators make a big deal about this, we shouldn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is similar to stating that a mass shooting event was the most deadly mass shooting event since Columbine in a high school involving multiple shooters who were students there and who committed suicide before they could be apprehended. That's no exaggeration; I've seen things just like that inserted into articles several times, by editors who don't understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's policy, by the way. A few bored reporters like to report such things as if they are baseball statistics, and some editors see it and are unable to evaluate its usefulness to an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

With regard to the sentence which was incorrect (sorry), I think we should mention election day. Otherwise the narrative is unclear and strange. Something like "On November 4, the day after election day, with the results still unclear, Trump declared victory. However, I don't know what the correct American terminology for election day is.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I would like to say that the correct American terminology for election day is Election Day (usually capitalized, if I'm not mistaken). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was my fault. I screwed up, sorry. starship.paint (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already claimed responsibility. However, Trump claimed victory in the early morning, November 4. Saying that it was the day after Election Day would be misleading, because it was actually on election night. Leaving this out will make it confusing in the future, but I'm not sure how to word this elegantly.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: Possible wordsmithing improvement. Elegant? Probably not.

Current:

On Election Day, November 3, the results were unclear, but nevertheless, early on November 4, Trump declared victory

Suggested:

The election was held on November 3. The following morning, with the election results unclear due to slower ballot counting in several states, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump declared victory at 2 am. Saying that it was the "following morning" seems misleading to me. Basically he made the call on election night.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: That distinction is really important in a Trump biography? It seems to me the essential point is that results were unclear, not the difference between 2am and 9am. But ok.

The election was held on November 3. At 2:00 the following morning, with the election results unclear due to slower ballot counting in several states, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's biographically important that it was 2 am. I think it's important that it was on election night, a fact that several sources have emphasised. To me, the "following morning" suggests there was a passage of time between election night and Trump's claim, during which presumably people went to bed. The fact is, when the count halted for the night, Trump called a press coverage and made those comments. There was no gap in time. Trump's reaction was immediate. Part of the problem is that "night" and "morning" are ambiguous. Maybe this doesn't matter, but I think it has potential to cause confusion in the future. I'm also not sure about the "slower ballot counting". Isn't it also true that the count in several states is very close?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: "At 2:00 the following morning" couldn't be much more unambiguous or more precise (I suppose we could say "At 2:02:34 the following morning"). The morning following November 3 is November 4, that's how clocks work, and people learn at about age 6 that 2:00 in the morning is two hours after midnight (like, in the the middle of the night, when most folks were sleeping). What's confusing?

If some states were still uncalled after the others had been called, that seems "slower" by definition. Or close enough for our purposes here.

As for your last sentence, I don't know how that applies to this particular sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point, I think. Some of the states were uncalled because they were very close, not because not enough ballots had been counted. So I can dispense with that part (returning us closer to the status quo).

The election was held on November 3. At 2:00 the following morning, with the election results unclear, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of us agree that saying that it was 2 am is unnecessary. However, if you say that it was 2 am the following morning, that is unambiguous. However, this was a quest for elegance. Perhaps that quest was in vain...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said, Saying that it was the "following morning" seems misleading to me. I addressed that concern by adding the time-of-day, which removed the ambiguity. Now you're saying the time-of-day is unnecessary. As for your quest for an undefined and unexplained "elegance", we are not writing literature here. All we need is to follow the usual goals of good non-fiction writing, such as correct grammar, clarity, flow, avoidance of repetitiveness and redundancy, and so forth, and I don't think the status quo language does that very well at all. That "but nevertheless" seems particularly grating to my ear. I'm at a loss to understand what would satisfy you at this point, so I'm going ahead with a BOLD edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe "morning" implies "at or after dawn, but before noon" where you live, and that's why "the following morning" seemed misleading to you. Where I live, it might mean that, or it might mean "between midnight and noon", depending on the context, so I don't see it as a problem. As I see it, my edit leaves no room for misunderstanding, even where you live. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet #48 does not belong under "current consensus," and the comment commanding users not to edit the Covid paragraph is inappropriate. The bullet suggests only that there is consensus for a paragraph on Trump's handling of the pandemic, not specific wording, and it specifically notes that prior discussions did not reach consensus on wording.

Instead, the term "status quo" is used, which does not reflect any policy disallowing further changes. This is a rather ham-handed effort to imply there is consensus where there is none and order users not to make changes to material without any grounding in policy or prior discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 125#Consensus 48 question. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. This one. So my primitive understanding is that CC#48 is a consensus for keeping the COVID response in the lead, and, while there's no consensus on the precise text, depending on who you ask, it can be interpreted as meaning there's a consensus on keeping that status-quo text until a consensus is found on an alternative. And of course our policy on this is clear as mud. At the most recent RfC, the closer's exact comment was "focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording through a combination of editing and talkpage discussion, making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors".

As it happens, I think "reacted slowly" is inherently judgemental language, so shouldn't be stated in wikivoice per WP:YESPOV. I tried to make this change yesterday but was reverted. The problem is that if the statement is an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" among RS, then NPOV does leave wriggle room for stating analytical assertions in wikivoice... so it's not entirely clear-cut. I think the wording would be better changed, but a case can be made that it's technically supportable by our policies.

• My suggestion would be: "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." I think the rest of the sentence consists of supported facts and can be stated in wikivoice once the "reacted slowly" bit is changed. I have a rough RfC draft waiting in the wings, which I was considering starting a preliminary conversation on, but as it happens Wikieditor19920 beat me to it. Jr8825 • Talk 07:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: Actually, WP:NOCON is pretty crystal clear. Where wording cannot be agreed upon, even if it is simply a modification, typically the entire segment is left out. There is no reference to "status quo" in WP:NOCON.

@Mandruss: Provided a link to a discussion (that I participated in) where the was continued disagreement and no resolution. And yet, somehow this point has wormed its way into the list of consensus bullets, despite clearly lacking consensus, under this mystical and inaccurate notion of "status quo."

I agree that the criticisms of Trump's handling of Covid were widespread, but I would venture to say they are not so undisputed and uncontroversial, even if it occurred along partisan fault lines. Given the lack of consensus, we should be resolving doubts in favor of the cautious route, which means providing attribution. Nothing about this waters down or counteracts the meaning if the text. I don't know how this ended up in the list of content with consensus, but it is ridiculous that an editor thought it appropriate to a) include it despite consensus so clearly not being apparent and b) insert a comment into the article ordering editors not to make changes when the text was perfectly subject to challenge. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOCON really isn't that clear, it allows for two different scenarios: one where the current version is retained and one where the contentious content is removed, and does not firmly say when each should be occur ("commonly" and "often" are the words it uses). Anyway, I think the best thing to do is focus on finding better wording that editors can agree on, rather than worry about what the current wording's status is. Jr8825 • Talk 08:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There IS consensus to include a statement. We devised a statement that after 5-months of discussion had considerable support, though it was deemed to not have a consensus. The trouble is that attempting to devise a consensus statement seems to just lead to endless discussion and no consensus - endless instability. I found the statement we included to be compelling and well-supported by reliable citations. There was zero (0) support for the weasel words, such as are presently in the lead: "was widely criticized" (by who?). Its just a fact he was slow, deliberately slow, as the article text pretty clearly describes. Factually correct and NPOV, but politically sensitive and perceived as POV. Meanwhile, for all the complaints about the statement given in CC#48 no one has yet brought an alternate suggestion to these Talk pages to attempt to devise an acceptable solution; we will not revert war ourselves to such a solution. Color me cynical. Bdushaw (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have some respect for the prior extensive discussions. Please respect the existing content of the article that the lead is meant to represent. These are obvious points... Bdushaw (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: I'm not sure whether you're referring to Wikieditor, me, or both of us, but I've read the RfCs and am not trying to challenge CC#48. My personal concern is purely limited to the wikivoice wording of "Trump reacted slowly". I've seen a significant number of editors raise concerns about it, more than can simply be dismissed as bad faith or sensitivity due to support for Trump^[1] – I definitely have no sympathy for him, and yet I can see policy-based objections to this wording. My concern boils down to the tone, not the accuracy. WP:IMPARTIAL and the non-judgemental principle of WP:YESPOV can be failed, even if the content is factual. I can break down in a more detailed way why I think it's a problem, but I'd like to suggest an alternative (well actually I just did :) but I didn't highlight it clearly so it looks like you missed it) – I've underlined it so it's more visible. What are your thoughts on this? I think it retains much of the strength of the current wording.

I agree with you that the new weasel wording isn't an improvement. I think it may be better to revert the text back to the 'status quo' until we find support for an alternative (such as mine, perhaps, but if not I'll happily drop the stick). Jr8825 • Talk 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking broadly, based on months of similar conflicts/arguments. Seems to me that those wishing to revise the status quo (its just a status quo, not a consensus, not set in stone!) have a straightforward path - start a new section entitled something like "Proposed revised COVID-19 statement for the lead" and give the statement and arguments for it. Editors on this article raise all manner of bias/political concerns, repeatedly; I am skeptical of such concerns wrt the consensus. There is a sense of bad faith/political motivations, without pointing any fingers; perhaps less trouble now that the election is over. A possible solution may be to attempt wording that avoids the question entirely. But I suggest a clean start to the question with a new Talk entry. Trump has behaved more poorly than slowly, however - a good case to be made that he was counterproductive numerous times - ridiculing masking, attitude, politicizing pandemic response, disinfectant injections, large rallies, etc etc. and now 10 days have gone by since the election and with the pandemic roaring in an entirely predictable/predicted way, he has been AWOL on the issue. A revised statement should likely touch on these more recent terrible consequences. But start a clean, new Talk section, IMO; that has been the obvious process (????!!!!) (and be prepared for months of discussion...) Bdushaw (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Process is important here, and hence accuracy. The citation you gave was not an RfC. There was a Talk Discussion (the link you gave), and a formal RfC. The status quo statement was a result of these extensive discussions. I personally thought the SQ statement had a consensus, but the uninvolved closers did not see it that way. Bdushaw (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I overlooked that it wasn't an actual RfC as CC#48 lists it as "link 1", followed by "link 2" for the RfC, and I didn't pay enough attention to the actual title. To be honest I jumped the gun a bit here by throwing a suggestion that I'd been working on into this section, as it happened to be on the same issue. While it's a bit repetitious, I'll start a new section specifically on the wording "reacted slowly". Jr8825 • Talk 14:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: Anyone wishing to edit a portion of the article that lacks consensus can do so by making bold edits or suggesting changes on the talk page. There is no "status quo" other than a term of art. At no point was the section mentioned in 48 the subject of any specific consensus over wording, and WP:NOCON frankly counsels against leaving it out for that reason. "Uninvolved editors" were wrong to suggest otherwise, and I think you should actually provide a policy link to support your assertions here about "status quo" being a thing. Further, the provided discussions show continued disagreement and debate, not consensus or "status quo." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of everything, but as a matter of reality, the avenue you suggest will lead to a wild west of anarchy, turmoil and instability, in lead edits...Troubles with edits in an article should be brought to the Talk pages for resolution. Bdushaw (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: No, problems ensue when the process is misused and editors assert consensus where there is none. Disagreement is allowed. The term you are using, "status quo," is not reflected in policy, and the discussions linked do not support the notion that this language is settled or undisputed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was settled. But it is a little odd, don't you think, that after a laborious, months long discussion process where some language is coaxed out to be finally tentatively included, Joe Schmoe editor can wander in and "fix" it, then Jane Schmoe editor can object and "fix" it some more, then Frank Schmoe, etc etc. No one has ever objected to bringing the statement to these talk pages to derive something better, as challenging as that may be. It is, I may add, a little something, to presume that the 20-30 editors involved with this process got it all wrong. Bdushaw (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's odd at all that editors are allowed to make changes to text, because I was the one who saw the problems with the text weeks ago, and I still see them present in the text now. You are misrepresenting past discussions by claiming greater involvement than there was, asserting consensus where there is none, and are behaving as if WP:OWN doesn't apply and only you or editors you agree with are allowed to make textual changes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, you are totally entitled to your opinion, to disagree with me, and boldly revert my changes. What I am advocating here goes both ways. But do not make up consensus where there is none. The notion of "status quo" is non-binding and has no implication other than as a term of art or a suggestion for a particular variant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor, I don't think you heard what Bdushaw just said. You didn't discover anything, you exhumed a dead woman. This was thoroughly discussed and resolved the first several times it was "discovered". SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:, that's a wonderful analogy, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the phrase "Trump reacted slowly" meet the following 3 tests against main components of our WP:NPOV policy?

• Avoid stating facts as opinions: Is "Trump reacted slowly" an uncontested and uncontroversial factual statement (per the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS)?

→ Passes test A Factual assertions ... should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice → wikivoice is appropriate; maintain the current wording.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts: Is "Trump reacted slowly" a significant opinion rather than a fact?

→ Fails test B Opinions should be attributed in the text → maintain the current wording with attribution (e.g. "Trump's response has been characterized as")

• Prefer non-judgmental language: Is "Trump reacted slowly" non-judgemental or is the language justified by a balance against clarity?

→ Fails test C Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts ... the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial → consider rewording to maintain an impartial tone.

If editors feel that the phrasing may fail tests B or C, would the following be an improvement:

Suggestions for alternative wording:

• In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
• (added)Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated/worsened its effects, he downplayed... (is considered to have?)
• (added)Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed...

Note on current consensus: Current consensus #48 states "there is no consensus on specific wording" on COVID-19 in the lead. It identifies the current phrasing as the "status-quo", retained on the basis of the extensive discussion surrounding it, rather than an explicit consensus in favour of it; some editors have expressed the view that a consensus would be required before making substantive changes. Following the closer's comments at the RfC, closed on 23 August, this section intends to focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording. It does not seek to overturn any aspect of CC#48. Jr8825 • Talk 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Has the previous text been restored? The proposed version is not better. It omits the sentence that gives an overview and orients the reader for the litany of failures that is recited in the "suggestion..." above. With the benefit of an additional several additional months' perspective, the word "slowly" seems euphemistic. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we continue to give UNDUE weight to the "China travel ban"? Except for the insistent repetition of Trump and his supporters, there is no RS weight that calls this significant or even effective. Moreover, the lack of action on travel from Europe for over a month after Trump knew of the danger is acknowledged and cited by RS but not duly covered here. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: euphemistic for killing lots of Americans, I presume? Do RS now spell this out clearly? A Google search finds this article in Nature saying "many experts blame Trump for the country’s failure to contain the outbreak". Are we able to say something close to this? The problem is that the article's author isn't saying it unequivocally themselves (they're attributing it to "many experts"). I still think that "Trump reacted slowly" isn't good enough for Wikipedia, as you said, it's euphemistic and if a scientific journal article isn't ready to state something like this without attribution, how can we do so as an encyclopedia? As a Brit looking in, it doesn't seem consistent (for example, by deaths per capita, Boris Johnson's response has been equally inept and deadly; much of the UK press has been utterly witheringly critical and you'd have an easy time finding RS saying that his government's response was deadly slow, yet the Boris Johnson article doesn't say "Johnson reacted slowly"). In my view, we either need to (1) take a route around such analytical wording in the lead until the sources are in place, while retaining the scathing facts (my suggestion) (2) attribute it (like Nature, as the current text introduced by Wikieditor19920 does, or (3) be more explicit, as you're suggesting, if we can find an uncontested and uncontroversial factual statement that's more explanatory. My !vote would for taking any of these options over the current wording. Jr8825 • Talk 15:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop this straw man about Trump killing people. The coronavirus is not Vince Foster. I have said no such thing and I've already needed to emphasize that in the "Biased" section above. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SPECIFICO, I didn't intend to paraphrase you there, or comment on your views. I should've made it clearer I was extending my thought process out from the points you'd made. My phasing was not good either, what I should've said was 'exacerbating the mortality rate', which isn't a straw man as such (I mean, it's the end result of his disastrous response, and I've read RS saying this) but this is definitely a step into more sensitive territory, so I'll leave this be as there are more productive directions to take this conversation. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assert facts, not opinions says that facts include "information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute." That is the situation here. TFD (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: The thing is, while I personally agree that Trump reacted slowly, I'm not comfortable with saying such a broad, blanket statement in Wikipedia's voice, particularly as it's still a current event (so we don't have the benefit of hindsight or historiography). ASSERT is a very strong argument for keeping the wording as it is, but I still feel it's too judgemental – it's negative, and it implies Trump reacted slowly in every single aspect (not just policy, but also misunderstanding it and privately not taking it seriously). This could certainly be true (I suspect it is) and some RS may have speculated this, but we can't say with authority what was going on inside his head. The flipside is he could've been deliberately holding off on action for any other reason (economic concerns related to personal electoral interests, for example). The US is not the only country that responded appallingly to the pandemic – Bolsonaro's lead is much better in my view: Bolsonaro's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil was criticized across the political spectrum; he sought to downplay the pandemic and its effects, opposed quarantine measures, and fired two health ministers, while the death toll increased rapidly. It's not that I want to avoid negative commentary, it's that I feel this particular phrase is inherently problematic. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there is mitigation: the U.S. does not have universal health care, it has a federal system, citizens don't listen to government instructions or science and few leaders did not respond slowly. I don't remember Biden and Pelosi making any suggestions about what to do and they had the same information Trump had. Nonetheless it is more accurate to say that Trump was criticized for responding slowly rather than critics say he responded slowly. TFD (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's arguing for "critics say he responded slowly", the problem is the status quo wording is "Trump reacted slowly" not "Trump was criticized for responding slowly" (and, since we're having this discussion, perhaps we can find a better alternative to "slow" anyway (see the chain below bouncing ideas off Bdushaw). Jr8825 • Talk 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using Wiki voice It is a fact that he was widely criticized for his response and it is appropriate to acknowledge this. We should steer from using Wiki voice and restating criticisms where unnecessary. It's not the job of Wikipedia to criticize, it's our job to summarize criticisms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reasonable opinion that Trump did not react slowly? If not, then it is misleading to imply that there is. TFD (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for criticism in Wiki voice. Simply stating what he did in factual terms ought to be enough. Spudlace (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:WIKIVOICE is clear that opinions should not be made in wiki voice, and just because an opinion isn't challenged in a RS, doesnt transform it into a fact. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is tricky because it is an assessment of the degree that Trump was viewed as slow. The classic example is we do not say "the earth is widely viewed as round", although flat earthers might like to have "the earth is sometimes viewed as flat" - rather, in wikivoice, "the earth is round". In the Trump case we are attempting to assess whether RS is sufficiently unambiguous that the question has no significant lingering doubt. I would say so - but we can look for citations that argue that the proper response was to go slow... If it were me, just now, I would attempt an entirely new statement, updated to the recent facts, and not belabor this particular point. The facts are, however, bad for Trump, politically - seems unavoidable. Bdushaw (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdushaw: toying with ideas here:

• Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic (is considered to have?) exacerbated/worsened its effects, he downplayed...
• Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was/has been ineffective, he downplayed...

these use wikivoice and can be supported with RS. I'm still not 100% about not using attribution, but these seem like more direct statements than the inherently subjective-sounding 'reacted slowly'. Jr8825 • Talk 17:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this might work, though I am no referee. I was just thinking that the SQ statement was derived from a chronological perspective (start->finish), whereas we might now do better taking a wide-angle view of Trump's 11-month history of pandemic response. An important aspect now, unclear before, is how Trump politicized the pandemic response; medical facts are not important, but if you wear a mask you are against me, etc. Earlier today I was noting that Trump is not at all assisting the nascent Biden administration in formulating its pandemic strategy. I believe the objection to "slow" is political rather than factual, however, so any statement that comes off making Trump look bad will likely continue to have problems. Bdushaw (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A subclause ("politicized the pandemic response due to the approaching US presidential election") may be a good candidate for inclusion in a new sentence. re: the objection to "slow", it's not just political: "slow" may be factual, but it's also, fundamentally, a judgement of some kind, even if it's a widely held, uncontested judgement. (What constitutes "slow"? And, as you pointed out, to what degree was he slow, as it's always a relative thing?) In contrast, saying the earth is round, or that the impact of COVID would've been lessened if the US federal government had taken actions it didn't, or communicated the risk of COVID-19 better, aren't inherently judgements. Jr8825 • Talk 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the earth is spherical or not is a fact that can be scientifically proven, regardless of your expectations or thoughts on the matter. Whether Trump's response was "slow" depends on expectations and competing priorities, and is clearly a broad opinion statement. WP:WIKIVOICE states that opinions should not be stated in wiki voice as if it were a fact, but should rather be attributed to the source or described as a widespread view in the text. Sandman9083 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another way the issue might be approached is if we say "critics say" (or whatever) to then actually be able to list those critics. For the statement in question you have, e.g. "NY Times, WA Post, health officials, doctors, New England Journal of Medicine, etc etc say..." The list is long indeed - so seems to me we can drop "critics say" (or whatever). Bdushaw (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources are pretty clear that Trump "reacted slowly" (an extremely charitable summary, if anything). I'm not aware of any significant equal or comparable weight of independent reliable sources disputing this, or claiming he acted swiftly or effectively. So Wikipedia policy is quite clear on how to handle this - we reflect reliable sources, and we don't water them down with weasel words or create the appearance of uncertainty where none actually exists. A neutral, WP:NPOV-compliant summary is one that accurately reflects the weight of reliable sources, not one that satisfies editors' personal commitments to both-sidesism. At some point we have to tell readers the truth and resist the urge to rewrite history. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, why all the concern about his delayed, slow, or negligent policies? They were all within his presidential authority and discretion. Let's not impose any value judgment on the documented RS fact. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Specifico: Your characterization of "weasel words" is incorrect. It is standard practice to use terms like "widely criticized" or "widely acknowledged" in leads, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as specific attribution is provided later in the body. MOS:LEAD. This does not fall under WP:WEASEL. I thought you were aware of that. Second, attribution is not "watering down," it is how we describe observations by commentators without asserting them as fact. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You talkin' to me? I don't see that I used "weasel" on this page? I do think that with the benefit of 10 months' hindsight, "slow" is not the salient description of Trump's approach. It's more widely described in RS as abdication. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Providing attribution for widely held understandings of the world or events, when there is no actual substantive disagreement among reliable sources, is a) poor writing, and b) potentially misleading. To say that Trump was "widely criticized" for acting slowly is like saying that HIV is "widely believed" to be the cause of AIDS. It's literally true, and satisfies a particular narrowly technical concept of "neutrality", but it's also misleading and at odds with Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, which enjoins us to avoid presenting widely accepted realities as if they were opinions (even "widely-held" ones). MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inapt analogy. We don't compare scientific facts with analytical commentary. Obviously it is disputed, no doubt along partisan fault lines. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor, in assessing DUE WEIGHT, you need to be sure to exclude Trump's own statements and those of self-interested parties and allies who repeat them. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Discovery Channel, "In science, a fact is an observation that's been confirmed so many times that scientists can, for all intents and purposes, accept it as "true." But everything in science comes with a level of uncertainty, so nothing is ever scientifically "true" beyond a shadow of a doubt."[16] Scientific facts, such as whether Covid-19 actually exists or is a hoax created by George Soros, are disputed along partisan lines. It's only in religious fundamentalism and conspiracism that one finds absolute certainty. TFD (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiedtor19920, While I never get tired of self-assured pseudonymous editors explaining how science works to me, TFD is correct. The role of HIV in causing AIDS is the result of "analytical commentary", and continues to be disputed vigorously be a small fringe of partisans. Yet we present it in Wiki-voice, without attribution, because there is no significant dispute in reliable sources. Likewise with Trump's slow reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Perhaps a brush-up on policy, then. It's a ridiculous analogy. Criticisms are opinions, not assertions of fact. We do not restate subjective characterizations in Wiki voice. "Slow reaction" is one such characterization; maybe it has merit to it, but that doesn't change the analysis. It must be attributed. That is part of writing a detached, neutral summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a far better version. To describe something as slow is an opinion, and should be properly attributed as an opinion if it is to be included. If for whatever reason it is "charitable" to say that Trump was slow, then we should absolutely not be charitable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This version is much more neutral than the current wording and sticks to the facts, If a majority of the other world leaders had reacted sooner, then the current wording would be okay, however, that is not the case as a majority of world leaders reacted in the same timeframe as trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just some ideas: the statement "Trump's pandemic response was ineffective..." does bypass the "slow" question, though it could still be construed as an opinion (I don't think it is, but others may). The phrase "widely criticized across the political spectrum" (above) is more a statement as to a political assessment of the man, than a characterization of a particular response per se. One factor important here and elsewhere in the article, but not described properly yet, is the degree to which people respond to the actions and statements of a president. Trump's rhetoric and examples were picked up on by many people, leading to such poor pandemic response (in Red states particularly); people follow their leader; even globally people have followed Trump. Rallies, take malaria drugs, no masks, no social distancing, it's no problem if you are macho enough, etc. All eventually leading to the present dangerous circumstance of runaway infections, even prior to the start of the dangerous winter season, c.f., recent Fouci statements. So a phrase something like "Trump set dangerous examples in pandemic response" may be in order. Then there is an abrogation of Federal leadership/coordination with respect to such things as scarcity of personal protection equipment, states fending for themselves, etc, indeed an abrogation of any Federal response at all at the moment. Perhaps still too early for such an effort, but our prior Discussion featured a table of various possibilities, which allowed editors to see all the possibilities and state their preferences. In short, beyond the "slow" question, there are a wide range of possibilities as to a revised statement, if people want to open this Pandora's box. Bdushaw (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And extraordinary pressure to open economies early, a source of much of the present problem. That particular issue occurred toward the tail end of our previous discussions, I believe. Bdushaw (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would still need to attribute a characterisation as ineffective, as that is also a matter of opinion. It is not as if there is a significant reliable opinion that says Trump was not slow, it is that this is still an opinion, even if an expert one. There is also quite a lack of sources provided that characterise the response primarily as slow, rather than other views like ineffective, negligent and so on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]