Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. See #44. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. See #32. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

69. Do not include the word "criminal" in the first sentence. (January 2025)

Internal consistency

This article conforms to MoS guidelines. Where MoS guidelines allow differences between articles at editor discretion, this article uses the conventions listed here. These conventions do not apply to quotations or citation |title= parameters, which are left unchanged from the sources.

• Use American English, per the {{Use American English}} template.
• Use "Month Day, Year" date format in prose, per the {{Use mdy dates}} template.
• To prevent line breaks between month and day in prose, code for example April 12. Since content is often moved around, do this even if the date occurs very early on the line.
• To prevent line breaks within numerical quantities comprising two "words", code for example $10 billion.
• Use "U.S.", not "US", for abbreviation of "United States".
• Use the Oxford/serial comma. Write "one, two, and three", not "one, two and three".
• The Citation Style 1 (CS1) templates are used for most references, including all news sources. Most commonly used are {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, and {{cite magazine}}.
  • |work= and its aliases link to the Wikipedia article when one exists.
  • |work= and its aliases match the Wikipedia article's title exactly when one exists. Code |work=[[The New York Times]], not |work=[[New York Times]].
  • Code |last= and |first= for credited authors, not |author=.
  • Code |author-link= when an author has a Wikipedia article. Place this immediately after the |last= and |first= parameters for that author. |last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist).
  • Per current consensus item 25, omit the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead.
  • Omit |location= for news sources.
  • Omit |language= for English-language sources.
  • Omit |issn= for news sources.
  • Otherwise, coding differences that do not affect what readers see are unimportant. Since they are unimportant, we don't need to revert changes by editors who think they are important. For example:
    • Any supported date format is acceptable since the software converts dates to mdy format when the citation is rendered.
    • For web-based news sources, the choice between |work=, |newspaper=, and |website= is unimportant.
    • Sequence of template parameters is unimportant.
    • Spacing between template parameters is unimportant.
  • There is currently no convention for the use of named references.

Article bias forum

This forum is about bias at this article. For discussion about Wikipedia article bias in general, please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Anyone is welcome to read the forum. Users who have some experience working with Wikipedia content policy are invited to participate.

To enter the forum, follow this link.

Related reading: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142

03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164

07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152

28 Jan 2025 — 492 = 47 + 84 + 155 + 135 + 71

04 Feb 2025 — 461 = 44 + 82 + 162 + 147 + 26

11 Feb 2025 — 475 = 44 + 79 + 154 + 141 + 57

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067

03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180

07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — 15,086 – 422,683 – 094

28 Jan 2025 — 12,852 – 365,724 – 203

04 Feb 2025 — 11,261 – 337,988 – 254

11 Feb 2025 — 11,168 – 339,283 – 249

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. 2A02:1406:10:ED6A:0:0:369E:4EDF (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. 2600:6C4A:4B7F:DBC0:81AF:2AD8:9DD7:F170 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous image is more suited for his wikipedia page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is the official portrait of the current president's last term. Wikipedia doesn't curate the president's portraits. Onikaburgers (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Whos talking about curating. We can use the 2017 portrait, too Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The current practice with the presidents is using the latest official portrait. The literal definition of curating is selecting something. Please articulate your reason why the previous official portrait is more suitable to use here. Onikaburgers (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Every president has a proper smiling portrait without picture effects. The latest one has effects Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are trolling or not but, again, the current practice with the presidents is using the latest official portrait, rather than subjective selection and preference like not smiling enough. WP:NPOV Onikaburgers (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This picture is artifically edited with special effects. This was in particular my reasoning Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a feedback you should forward to the author of the photograph. Onikaburgers (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Wikipedia uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous image is more suited for his wikipedia page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems someone already made the change. 2601:483:400:1CD0:4F19:2F59:ED54:E088 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

New Trump-produced portrait

Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait 2601:300:4B81:9C70:B848:8708:D29D:D129 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. Jimco1945 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be noted on the page that this is his inauguration portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Were they included in Wikipedia articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine Are Jay Morrison (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo is the current profile picture for the official POTUS account, signifying it as an official photo Btomblinson (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. His Twitter does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at the Commons village pump for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus 1 references temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required. See this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on "the author is going to PD [it]" at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See Commons:Licensing Pave Paws (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Made an account just to change this. Yes! Evaburden (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Evaburden, it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - Until Library of Congress has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/

207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. Here is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke emanating from the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. BarntToust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Wikipedia. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings (day or night). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but aside from the copyright issues of this image, I think that there are some warranted WP:NPOV concerns here with the lighting/post-production and expression (which I think is aimed at conveying something), as outlined by Mandruss. We often use officially produced portraits of cabinet members and members of Congress because they are current, of high quality, and free use as works of the U.S. Government (usually confirmed by their metadata). I would posit that these are routine images taken without much thought given for the pose, composition, lighting, etc. aside from what a typical portrait photographer would consider. However, I am not sure the same can be said for this image. Connormah (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this train of thought. Even if the copyright concerns are resolved (such as the photographer themselves releasing into public domain), I would only support this image if there is no other free image that even comes close to being as neutral. I broadly agree with the idea that we should try to update the image to one that reflects his current (approximately 8 years older) appearance, if/when a free option is available that otherwise works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. Well said. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is a portrait produced under directive by Trump and co., then I think that if it looks devious, that's the choice of Trump, and we use the official portrait anyhow. Ultimately, if what ends up being the official portrait is something comparable to this & that is the image millions see as they look at Wikipedia, so be it. That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.

Let's not ignore our common sense when we look through this article and we see that a good chunk of it is damning info about crime, uprising, totalitarianism, and fascism. Perhaps a portrait of this caliber would be poetic in a way, representing the content within? BarntToust 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it. Absolutely not. Trump's wishes are completely irrelevant here. That applies as much to the infobox portrait as to any other content in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying we make Trump's Infobox the way he wants because we want to appease him, I'm saying that we go along with the portrait per policy, and that if it looks horrible, by all means it will be reflective of the horrible things that he has done that are present in the article. BarntToust 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Like, even if it's a shitty portrait, it would be due as it would represent the contents of the article therein. Point is, a shitshow should be represented thusly if that's what Trump is gonna send to the Library of Congress. BarntToust 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's try this: Why are we spending so much time discussing a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to become a reality? Check out the Commons deletion request; it's almost certain to pass and the image will be deleted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust, as I indicated above, it is not a WP policy to use official images, and we are not obligated to do so if we feel they might violate our NPOV policy. Usually that is not a consideration, but like many things, that could be a point of discussion here. Connormah (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ has those exact portraits uploaded now. Public domain licenses thus attached. My point still stands: Trump is known for doing not-good things, the portrait happening to reflect that not-good-ness is reflective of the article, which also does not violate NPOV. BarntToust 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In short, having a devious-looking portrait—for a felon who has been compared to Hitler, made racist and sexist remarks, makes falsehoods like rabbits make babies, stole and mishandled official documents, so on and so forth—is not a problem? BarntToust 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

this is about the portrait and not the politics. Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. BarntToust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters are cute. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on how Trump's new official photo looks, I would be in favour of just keeping his photograph as-is. The current one looks really good. Mgasparin (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but it will be 12 years old by the time he leaves office. People don't like such old photos in infoboxen. A lot think it's too old now. It's unlikely a new official White House portrait will be unacceptably poor in quality; those guys know what they're doing. Anyway, we're hoping but don't know there will be another official portrait after he takes office. Trump may order this "inauguration" portrait to be the one used on the White House page, and it may be within his presidential powers to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate edit requests/discussions

I'd like to start a discussion here on duplicate discussions. At this point, they are going to keep coming in, likely multiple per day. Does anyone disagree that, after leaving them up for a reasonable amount of time for the user to see a response (I suggest 12 hours), they can simply be removed from the talk page so they don't get archived and clog up the archive?

Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. BarntToust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? anikom15 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).

However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.

So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg -- JFHutson (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The closer said this is freely licensed now (20 January). What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Wikipedia, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that User:Bedivere. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? BarntToust 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to prove that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See the precautionary principle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.

Lo, the pot calls the kettle black. BarntToust 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See here. The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pantarch: You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion was reached on Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. Pantarch (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. Pantarch (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons deletion request closed as keep

[1] Me, I'd call that a supervote by the closer. And the closure rationale exists nowhere but in the page history? But what do I know. As I said above, Wikipedia copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a supervote, it's now at their noticboard for user/admin problems as a blatant supervote and license laundering. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).

We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. anikom15 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e., , should be inserted on the remaining ones. Pantarch (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, @Pantarch:. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't violate the BRD restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" Pantarch (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Original heading: "Updating consensus #50, lead sentence" ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Current wording:

The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

I propose to update it to read

The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who serves as the 47th president of the United States.

Present tense makes clarifications such as "current" and "since 2025" redundant. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The "47th..." GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What GoodDay said.

Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's getting worst. Somebody keeps trying to link "45th president" to Second presidency of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't fret. See this, second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What about "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta have "47th" & "45th" in there, to match with his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary because, unlike his predecessors, he's numbered twice, which is an inconvenience when it comes to word play.

But if we're going that route then maybe something like "is the 47th president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) We don't need words like "current" and "previous", and I think we can leave the start date to the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - this version. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Or (sorry):

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

I can go either way, but sentence 2 currently says Republican Party. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss surely to align with other politicians' articles, it should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025 and previously served as the 45th president from 2017–2021. Utter Donkey (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Not all consistency is good consistency. Don't get caught in the consistency trap. Ask not whether something is consistent, but whether it is good. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the point here is that its weird his first term is worded like it was a previous office. It was the same office, just nonconsecutive terms, kind of like how Vladimir Putin's article is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is zero risk of misleading readers, it's not a significant problem. So explain to me what a reader might be misled to take from my text. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll rollback my suggestion now that you mention that. There isn't really a risk that your text will be misleading. What I was just saying was that splitting the lead and making it so his first term isn't mentioned until the second sentence is odd because it was the same office he's holding now. Splitting the sentences makes it seem like his first term was some different office he held prior to the presidency.

But I guess you're mostly right. We shouldn't idiot proof everything. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss I don't see any reason for it to be different though. The word 'previously' could be dropped I suppose. Why are we making Trump's article different from pretty much every single other politician and world leader who currently holds a certain post? Utter Donkey (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Responded at your UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021

B: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

C: leave it as is

Note: Saying since 2025 makes sense since that was when he became president. We can't necessarily say until 2029, not crystal ball here. Also, saying "serving as current 47th president" is improper due to the next successor after Trump being 48th president. Cwater1 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've lost count of the different proposals, and the discussion is just 8 hours old. Many more proposals are sure to come, since everybody has a better idea and nobody is capable of settling for anything less than their personal concept of perfection (perfect is the enemy of good). Any suggestions for a methodology that might get us to a consensus sometime before July? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 Btomblinson (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As of this comment, one editor out of seven has expressed support for a proposal that was not theirs. Yes, that includes me, I didn't say I'm any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trumps lead sentence in 2021 before he left office said, I still have a picture, "... who has been the 45th and current president of the United States since 2017." and 4 days ago, Joe Biden's page, before he left office said, "who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2021."

Seems as though everyone has forgotten the consensus how the lead sentence is to be structured, "who has been the [order] and current president..." Lets keep to the consensus let it remain this way. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

We are not bound by any existing consensus, even if such a consensus actually existed. WP:Consensus can change. Biden's article has no bearing on this article. Sounds like you might be interested in proposal F, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it too late to say I reckon the current first sentence is pretty good? Riposte97 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the proposals already get pretty close if one can part with the "January 20" (excessive date precision for the lead, imo). The more proposals, the harder to reach consensus for any of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not too attached to the 'January 20', it just seems stylistically best to include a specific date if we're going to use 'since 2025', since we are currently in 2025. Nevertheless, I can endorse option J. I suppose we'll get to 2026 in eleven months… Riposte97 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Riposte97: Then endorse away, in the survey section. I'll update the tally section after you do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Round One

Sentences 1 and 2 proposals

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

---

Proposals containing:

• is the 47th: A, B, G, K
• serves as 47th: E
• has been the 47th: C, F
• has served as the 47th: H, J
• has been serving as 47th: D
• and current: D, E, F, G
• since 2025: C, D, E, F, H, J
• A member of the Republican Party: B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K
• was also the 45th: K
• served as the 45th: A, B, C
• previously served as the 45th: D, E, F, G, H, J
• from 2017 to 2021: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K

A:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

B:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

C:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

D:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

E:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

F:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

G:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

H:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025, having previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

J:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

K:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he was also the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

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

Sentences 1 and 2 survey

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

---

• B then A. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• B then A. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• G. btomblinson (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• A or B or K. B, then A. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) (Option K was added after I responded. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)) Making a rated choice. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being WP:POINTy to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• B then A. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• H (my own proposal) then J — "has served as" is more natural to be than "has been" or "is serving as"; words like "current" aren't needed because it's present tense and "since 2025" with no end date implies it, and one sentence total, without mentioning his party affiliation, while mentioning his tenure as the 45th directly after mentioning him as the 47th. DecafPotato (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your proposal is a 39-word sentence, and your comment starting with "has" is a 56-word sentence. You seem to have a penchant for long sentences. What's inherently good about one sentence total?

  "The best sentences are around 15-18 words long. Some sentences will be longer, but try keep your sentences to no more than 21-24 words at the most. This helps you keep your sentences grammatical because longer sentences need more conjunctions and more punctuation. Shorter sentences are easier for your reader as well." - Shorter is Better

  Longest sentence in ABCDEFGJ (D sentence 1): 30 words. Average sentence in ABCDEFGJ: 21.4 words. You're 82% over that average. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't say there is anything inherently better about only one sentence. However, I felt that the lead sentence(s) would be more concise if the party affiliation was removed. When I did that, I realized that mentioning his previous role as the 45th president then felt unnatural in its own sentence. Therefore, I decided to fold it in to the previous sentence. For what it is worth, however, the new option J is equally preferable to me. (Because I don't feel strongly about whether his party affiliation is included in this part of the lead.) DecafPotato (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Then I'd suggest changing your vote to J, since H has about a 1% chance of passing and you might as well not vote at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• H J. Mostly per DecafPotato; the other wordings sound slightly awkward when I read them out loud (to me at least), and feel unnecessarily worded. "has served as the 47th president since 2025" clearly communicates to readers that he is the current president. Note that I added H's wording to the article previously on January 20, which unfortunately got reverted. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  which unfortunately got reverted Hmmm, I wonder why. See my reply to the Potato. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Two separate things. I replaced "is currently serving as" with "has served as". If combining the lede sentence with the second sentence (while removing "A member of the Republican Party") is too controversial, I'd switch my !vote to support only the change I previously made. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Nythar: Sure, I added J just for you. I don't think we've hit all possible permutations yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• J then B. Tantomile (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It should say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. He is the second president to serve non-consecutive terms and the first with no prior military or government experience. Trump's ideas and their subsequent development, are collectively known as Trumpism." DisneyGuy744 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry, you're off topic. This is about sentences 1 and 2, as stated in three different section headings. Not about the first paragraph. You have already started discussion about the rest of that, at #Short. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• F. The lead sentence for Donald Trump’s Wikipedia page should follow the established precedent used for current presidents, stating:
  "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025."
  This format is critical for clarity and consistency. Consider that throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, his page began with:
  "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021."
  Similarly, during Donald Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, his page stated:
  "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 45th and current president of the United States since 2017."
  For over eight years, this standard phrasing has been consistently applied to reflect the order of the presidency while also emphasizing the incumbency of the individual. This structure ensures that readers immediately understand both who the individual is and their current role.
  If the sentence were changed to simply say, “Donald John Trump… has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025,” it would lose a critical layer of clarity. Without the phrase “and current,” the sentence does not clearly communicate that Trump is actively serving as president. Readers unfamiliar with the exact timeline of U.S. presidencies might misinterpret or miss this detail.
  The phrase “and current” explicitly signals incumbency, while the concluding “since 2025” specifies when the term began. This structure leaves no ambiguity and is particularly important for readers who may be unfamiliar with the nuances of U.S. presidential history.
  Consistency across Wikipedia is also important. The established standard has been used without issue during Trump’s first term and Biden’s presidency. To change this now, after years of established precedent, would degrade its meaning.
  Maintaining the phrase “47th and current president of the United States since 2025” is not just about tradition—it is about ensuring clarity, readability, and adherence to the status quo that has served well for more than eight years. TimeToFixThis (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  I assure you no reader will notice minor differences in wording between presidential BLPs, let alone be bothered by them, misled by them, or disserved by them. This kind of thing matters far more to certain editors than to readers, and we're here to serve the readers, not the editors. I've yet to stumble across a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports this kind of thinking, unless one applies some weird "original research" reading-between-the-lines interpretation. Wikipedia PAGs do support consistency within a single article—i.e. "internal consistency"—so, for example, we're allowed to have an internal but informal standard for how to use most citations.

  A desire for this kind of consistency can become obsessive, and often does—to the detriment of the project. Perfect is the enemy of good. Some types of cross-article consistency are worthwhile (e.g., sentence case for section headings), but this isn't one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  No one has yet explained why we are changing the established lead sentence structure. This is not about personal preference or editors clinging to old habits. My argument is that the status quo works, and I’ve provided clear reasoning for why it provides the most clarity and usefulness for readers. What’s missing from this discussion is a compelling explanation of why the current phrasing doesn’t work or why it needs to change.

  It seems that the only reason we’re even having this debate is that, with the passage of time, some editors may have forgotten why it was written this way in the first place. This isn’t a new idea—it’s a tested and agreed-upon standard that has served its purpose well. I recall past discussions about this very topic, where consensus was reached that including both the presidential order and the incumbency in the lead sentence was the clearest and most effective way to write it.

  To me, it seems like what I’m presenting here is being interpreted as a new proposal when, in reality, it’s simply defending what has already been thoughtfully considered and agreed upon. The current structure—“Donald John Trump… has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025”—isn’t arbitrary or random. It was decided upon because it provides readers with immediate clarity: the order of presidency, the fact that the individual is the incumbent, and when their term began.

  This discussion should be less about proposing alternatives and more about pausing to ask why we feel the need to change something that works. Unless there’s a strong and clear justification for why the current phrasing fails, it should remain as is TimeToFixThis (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  No one has yet explained why we are changing the established lead sentence structure. And no one is required to do so. You have voted and given an articulate argument. If enough editors are convinced by your argument, proposal F will pass. I'm not convinced. End of story. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

TimeToFixThis, it isn't true that Similarly, during Donald Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, his page stated: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 45th and current president of the United States since 2017." Per consensus 17 the first sentence initially said that Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. It was followed by a second sentence: Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. "In office since January 20, 2017" was dropped in 2018. Consensus 17 was superseded by consensus 50 in 2021. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2xYou may be correct on that. My main point of contention is the wording "current and 47th president...since 2025." part of the sentence. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm astounded by the number of editors pointlessly flogging the article's first paragraph, while not helping establish the consensus that will make their flogging pointless. I tried attracting more participation here; no joy.
  If we can't get good participation, we'll establish the consensus with bad participation. For example, proposal B has 3 first-choice votes and 3 second-choice votes, giving it a significant lead. Then, when people complain that there was insufficient participation for the consensus, the response will be: Where were you when the consensus discussion was underway for weeks?
  Folks don't seem to understand that consensus discussions are important. It's not impossible to change an existing consensus per WP:CCC, but it's not easy—especially a recently-established consensus—nor should it be. I would strongly oppose a revisitation within ~12 months, and I doubt I would be the only one. We haven't the time to keep revisiting consensuses because a few editors disagree with them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Mandruss I have just pinged several editors from previous consensus votes on this topic to come weigh in. Lets give it another week at least before we close this vote. Thanks TimeToFixThis (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TimeToFixThis: Do you have any reason to believe they will support your position? If so, you have violated WP:CANVASS.

  I don't have any definite plans for this, but I wasn't thinking as soon as one week. We may need a second round of voting to decide between the top three contenders. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Who did you ping? I don't see that edit in this discussion or in your contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss I sent editors from the past discussions like this to come and weigh in. I sent a message to all the editors who voted or weighed in, regardless if they support my position or not. Hopefully they will come and put their two cents worth in. TimeToFixThis (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TimeToFixThis: Do you mind pointing me to that edit? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Mandruss I sent a message about the ongoing consensus conversation to their talk pages and linked it to here for them to weigh in. I figured it would be too much work writing down all there names here one by one, so I copied and pasted the same message to each of them. TimeToFixThis (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, those weren't "pings", which is why I didn't recognize them in your contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh fair enough TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: These two RfC discussions from July 2021 about the lead sentence of the Joe Biden article may be useful for reference:
  • Use of "serving as"
  • Inclusion of "current"

  Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thankyou for your inclusion of this. This helps give background to this discussion. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  TimeToFixThis, my major concern is that the incumbency section of the sentence for this BLP, will be (in format) copied at the intro of JD Vance's page. On the subject of incumbents? I've had difficulty getting an agreement on the intros of incumbent US governors, US senators, etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  GoodDay, I have noticed this discrepancy as well, with several difference officeholders having different lead structures. However, that still doesn't take away from the fact that the officeholder of president is separate from other politicians being it that they are one of its kind. I say we keep the best sensible lead wording and deal with the other officeholders separately. TimeToFixThis (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  With ten options, it's gonna be awhile before there's a consensus for anything. PS - Notice there's no option "I" up there? GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Correct. "I" is often omitted because it's indistinguishable from an English language word. So is "A", but only at the beginning of a sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps we could do a process of elimination, like by doing a consensus on which options won't work until we narrow it down? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  [2] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a little confused, are you saying this was suggested before? If so, do you think we should do it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  That diff represents a self-quote from earlier in this discussion. That way, I don't have to repeat myself. After further thought, I'm pretty sure we should do a second round of voting to decide between the top three. The reason: There are so many options that a leader will likely never have a majority. I think a majority is essential to a durable consensus: we don't want to install a first paragraph that a majority of voters didn't vote for. So, the question is when to end the first round and start the second, and I'm thinking about a week from now. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know how likely, but we could end up with the same situation with only three options. Maybe we should do just two, I don't know. We certainly don't want a third round. The top three are B, J, and A, in that order, but that could change. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic about the meaning of life consensus. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC) This is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard##Talk:Donald Trump#Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Top 3? Like the most votes? Don't we make decisions based on consensus rather than majority votes? If so, can't we just disqualify the options with either nobody defending them, or with defenses that had been unchallengedly refuted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Top 3? Like the most votes? Top 3 per the weighted scores, but yes, basically the most votes. Consensus just means trying to sway others to your viewpoint; after a reasonable amount of time, you count votes. It doesn't mean my vote is discounted because you have countered it, and I'm certainly not going to concede because you have done so. Either you sway me to your viewpoint, or you don't, and I remain unconvinced by any opposing argument. The only exception is when you have an uninvolved closer and the closer judges that the minority has a stronger policy basis. You can see this principle demonstrated in this recent uninvolved closure by a very experienced and very competent closer. He determined that the minority did not have a stronger policy basis, so he counted votes. Another recent example: this uninvolved closure done by a less experienced and less competent closer (me). I judged that there was no policy basis for either side, so I counted votes. That closure stayed on the page for two days and was not contested, nor has it been contested to date. There is no Wikipedia policy that has any bearing at all on this discussion; it's all editorial judgment (nobody has even claimed a policy basis, let alone claimed one validly). So there is no reason to waste an uninvolved closer's time, and we will count votes. (You'll note that most of the voters voted and left; that's because they understand how this works. Ideally, they should stick around and listen to the opposing arguments, but that is not required.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC) But under WP:Consensus it says "We do not add up the names to see what consensus is. This is because consensus is not just what most people say should happen. Polls are usually the start of a discussion, not the end." And also "What consensus is not Some people may confuse consensus with other things. These are: Voting: consensus is not about seeing who has the most people on their side." Am I missing something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC) @Wikieditor662: Explain how we should determine the consensus of this discussion. How would that work, precisely? If lofty principles can't work in actual practice, we can't use them. So tell me how it works, you have the floor. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC) As stated before, my suggestion is to find common agreement. I see that this can be difficult sometimes (like in this case), which is partially why I went to the dispute resolution: to see the best way to move forward. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) If I'm wrong here, dozens of experienced editors have been doing it wrong here for about ten years. If I'm right, I recommend you raise the apparent conflict at WT:CONSENSUS. Wikieditor662 would forever be remembered as the editor who sparked the resolution of that conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Seems it's already being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Consensus-based (not correctness-based) (although being the first person to bring this up and cause a major change would be pretty cool haha). @Gluo88 Gave a good criticism of majority voting, you can read it on the page, but TLDR "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view". And for what I said earlier, I didn't simply mean who has the last word, but I was talking about if someone made a point, and a counterargument is made which completely rebutted their point and they don't respond, then there's pretty much a consensus against that point. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC) No, because completely rebutted their point is subjective. You and your supporters say you rebutted my point, I and my supporters say you did not, so where does that leave us? And, as I said previously, uninvolved closers are concerned only with policy, so they can't be of help here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC) As per WP:BLUE, it's sometimes pretty clear if there are no rebuttals to a counterargument without a logical fallacy or ignoring the counterargument. But yeah, in other times it may be a matter of opinion, which makes things more difficult. However, a problem with majority votes is recruiting, where users get others to come or create new accounts so they can get more votes. This can be especially dangerous when dealing with contentious and political topics. What do you think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC) What do I think about sneaky violations of behavior policy? Well I'm strongly opposed to it. lol. It can get one thrown in wikijail if caught. We call it "canvassing", not recruiting. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC) I didn't think you supported it, but I was suggesting that allowing majority votes will amplify the potency of breaking this rule. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC) it's sometimes pretty clear if there are no rebuttals to a counterargument without a logical fallacy or ignoring the counterargument. So your opponent(s) should go, "Damn! You got me! I have to concede, then!" Clutching the arrow you fired into their heart. Not happening. Otherwise, who is the arbiter? Uninvolved closers don't pore through the discussion keeping a running "logic score". That's just not what they do. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Of course, two people disagreeing with each other cannot usually reach a consensus. There also can't be a majority vote with two people. Usually, if there's a dispute with two people, you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on somewhere. If that still doesn't work, there are forums for certain topics of dispute. There can also be an RFC held, take for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination), where I made a point for merging one article under the other, and mentioned something which seemed to confuse others. They ignored my point (a point which I believe others made as well), and later the discussion was closed with a discussion to indeed merge, as those who argued keep did not address the counterarguments. Finally, if all else fails over a long period of time, there is Wikipedia:arbitration. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC) can't be a majority vote with two people. I never meant two people. I said your opponent(s). Any comments about "you" and "I" were mere communication devices. We don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Arbitration to count debate points in a situation that occurs in virtually all discussions of any complexity? Seriously? We've been off-topic for some time, and I'm about ready to collapse it. I usually point out that it's not to terminate the off-topic discussion but merely hide it, and I say "Ok to continue within collapse" in the collapse header. But I think this is better discussed at WT:CONSENSUS than here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Makes sense, although I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• K, then B

Also, *Remove the "has served", as @TimeToFixThis said partially, I see absolutely no reason for this, it was never agreed upon in the previous RFCs brought up by @Gluonz and I haven't seen any good arguments for keeping this, saying "served" in the past tense is just confusing. Having it be "is serving" "serves" or "is currently" is all better than this.

• I propose we change it to one of these until we decide which is the best to use, are there any objections to this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not from me. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to waste their time editing a paragraph that will be replaced when we reach consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Riposte97 Have you seen this message? I gave a clear reason to change it until the consensus is reached. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree. 'Has served' is not past tense, and native English speakers should intuitively understand that Trump is the incumbent by reading it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's definitely still possible to understand, but I think it's a little more confusing than the other potential versions. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have a vote for one or two of the proposals? That's how this survey is structured. Remove the "has served" is not one of the options. The only proposal containing present-tense "serves" is proposal E. If you're willing to forgo any form of "serve", that increases your options from one to three (A, B, G). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  For which I think are the best, in order, starting from the one I think is best: K, then B (3rd and 4th would be A, then E).

  Here's why, although these details are more minor, and doing any of these four wouldn't be the end of the world:

  - I think it's noteworthy to mention he's a member of the Republican party in this section

  - I think saying he was "also" the 45th president sounds more grammatically correct.

  - "Serves" is probably not as good as some form sayings like "is serving" or "is the" or "is currently"

  The previous notes were more minor, now here's why I think the rest of them are more problematic:

  C, H, and J is similar to what we have been saying "has been" is potentially confusing to some readers, and just plain unnecessary.

  D and F sounds grammatically incorrect, "has been and current", and also unnecessary, especially if you can have "current since Jan 2025" etc then you don't need the has been.

  G is unnecessarily repetitive by saying "is the and currently", if someone is the President, then it's pretty obvious that they're currently serving. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Wikieditor662: Then please vote for "K then B". Two choices are enough, and we're not going to add two wide columns to the tally section just for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok well then if we can only vote for 2 then that's my vote. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Wikieditor662: Which would be far clearer and more organized if you actually created a new bullet with "K then B". Like everybody else. Follow the existing pattern, always. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, I fixed it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey @Mandruss do you know why my votes haven't been added to the table? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Wikieditor662: I guess because you haven't posted a bulleted vote like everybody else. This is not a nit. If somebody wants to re-evaluate this consensus months later, they shouldn't need to study and comprehend all the back-and-forth between editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Updated with a bullet, will they update it now? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Option F is best for keeping the present tense while also showing incumbency, "...who has been the 47th and current president...since 2025." TimeToFixThis (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorsing option J. Although, as I said, it would be preferable to have an exact date as currently reflected. Perhaps we can revisit that once J has been victorious. Riposte97 (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• B then A F then B. "...has served... since [date]" is confusing to those that are trying to understand English. These variations are much more better to read and understand. After reading these responses a second time, I agree with TimeToFixThis, as I also believe that we should keep this consistency going. MannyEdit (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• F. Saying "and current" is vital, for reasons that were discussed amply at a similar discussion regarding Joe Biden. The assertion that "is the 47th president" automatically implies current because it's present tense doesn't really stack up. The addition of a number could be seen as giving the holder a lifelong tenancy of that position. Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States isn't automatically incorrect or at least if it is, the present and past tense distinction is so obscure that we're doing our readers a disservice by omitting it. Also, as TimeToFixThis clearly notes, this was the format we used for Biden and it stood the test of time. There is no reason to deviate from that now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• None of these is quite right. Suggest "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he was also the 45th president from 2017 to 2021." The present tense verb "is" is sufficient to indicate that he currently holds the office. And the term "served as" has an air of "but wasn't really" to it (at least in my understanding). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perfect is the enemy of good. Perhaps you could vote for one or two that are acceptable without being perfect? I don't know why, but I feel some need to put this to bed before, say, March 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  By my interpretation none of them are good. They either assume the reader is an idiot who can't figure out that "is" means now or are trying too hard to be cutesy with forms of "serve". Keep it simple. He IS the 47th president and he WAS the 45th. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Khajidha: Sigh. Well go ahead and create proposal K, or just write it unformatted here and I'll do that. Once it's in place, you can vote for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Woops, I didn't notice you already did that lol. So I'll create proposal K. K for Khajidha. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Now I can see that K is VERY close to B, merely changing "he served as" to "he was also". That's the kind of perfectionist nit I was referring to. But too late unless you care to withdraw K. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Khajidha: Ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nope, not withdrawing. I find all these "served" phrasings useless. Was he or wasn't he? "Served as" comes across like "I've got a big rock that serves as a doorstop. It isn't really a doorstop, I can't be bothered to get a real one. This'll do." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• K, obviously. First, last, and only choice. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: @TimeToFixThis, @MannyEdit, @Amakuru, @GN22: Could we consolidate C and F? I am willing to add "and current" to my proposal because it may be a useful clarifier with the proposed wording. The one remaining issue would be about whether "previously" should be included in the second sentence. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Gluonz This is a fair issue, I am in support of coming up with a solution for the second sentence. TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Probably will not be necessary unless the combined weighted score of C and F overtake that of J. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• A, Simplest, and to my mind clearest, though I would add also/previously to him being 45th (as well as 47th) . Explicitly stating "current" is redundant IMO since 'is' establishes currency. I'm not sure why he 'is' 47th, but only 'served as' 45th, (as opposed to 'was 45th') but would not make an issue of it.Pincrete (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• B then A R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add some reasoning. I oppose any that say "current" because of MOS:CURRENT - so I expressely oppose D, E, F, G. B is best because it is the simplest and most concise, while including he's Republican. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense, but why not K though? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  K is fine. But the also in the second sentence is a bit clunky. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, it says also because he is both the 47th right now, and also the 45th earlier. Does that make sense? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Sigh, this is complicated. I don't support anything that says "since 2025". I do support identifying that he is the current president of the US in the first sentence. I also support the second sentence identifying that he is a part of the Republican Party and that he also served as the 45th President of the US. I'm not sure which (if any) of the current wordings I support, and to be blunt I fundamentally disagree with this level of RfC. The exact wording of something shouldn't need a RfC in my opinion, but I understand why it does in this case since Trump is a very contentious topic. (to the closer) Please weight my !vote wherever appropriate to find a consensus so long as it complies with the general ideas I have here. I am not torn on any one of the things I mention being a dealbreaker, but I would support fully any wording that meets my three criteria I identify within reason. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  (to the closer) As stated above, there is no reason for a closer. Closers are concerned only with policy and no policy applies here. Closers don't evaluate non-policy arguments, as that would inject their own editorial judgments. I still oppose even more options, and I suggest you just vote like everybody else. Or you won't be counted. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Even if there isn't a formal close, whoever determines the consensus here is a "closer" (for my purpose). I don't want to propose a specific option because it seems likely that there may be more options. So, as I stated, I listed my opinion on what the first two sentences should/should not do, and I leave it to whoever determines the consensus here to account for my vote accordingly. I am not required to vote for a specific option, because consensus is not a vote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Of all the participants to date, you and Wikieditor662 are the only editors objecting to how we're conducting this discussion. I'd say you're a bit outnumbered, wouldn't you? Even if there are four of you. Is it worth taking this to a higher power? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not saying the way in which the discussion is conducted is necessarily bad. But I don’t think trying to get editors to !vote for specific options is useful. The entire reason this survey is useful is to gather the views as to a wide range of points to be considered at once. As such, rather than just expressing any one option, I voiced my opinion on what an ideal option would have. And that means that even if options get added later, my !vote can be taken to support those options so long as they comply with my views. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see why people can't vote AND gather the views as to a wide range of points to be considered at once. Seems to me that's what we're doing. Votes can be changed if one is swayed. I didn't feel it was necessary to state my view that proposals A and B say what I think is important and no more. I suspect the same of the other voters for A and B. I've already said I don't support extra-policy cross-article consistency of the type supported by some in this discussion—and I've stated why I don't. One can be persuaded or not. This is not a poll, despite the word "survey". A poll would be voting without any discussion at all. We don't need two competing and conflicting ways to conduct this discussion. Create option L if you must. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've already given the rationale for a second round of voting: we need a majority, not a plurality. If we started that second round one week from today as I suggested, we might be able to wrap this up by the 20th: one month after he assumed the office. This should have been settled before he assumed the office; we had all the information we needed for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, if a bunch of Trump supporters came and decided that we should add that Trump is the greatest President of all time to the first sentence of his article, would you support doing that, if that's what the majority votes? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• J. I consider it vital to state when his term began, and "served as" is standard wording. — Goszei (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. "Since" in the first sentence is a proposition preposition, defined as "in the period after a specified time in the past : from a specified time in the past". 2025 is the present, and C, D, E, F, H, and J are grammatically wrong until January 1, 2026, and what's the point? We've debated "serves" vs. "is" ad nauseam during Trump's first term and finally settled on "serve" because "other presidents" and other politicians "serving" the public. Not a good reason, IMO, so I'd prefer K ("is the 47th" and "was the 45th") but that probably wouldn't get enough support. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're right about 'since', which is why the exact date was added. In the next series of votes, I’m hoping some minor corrections can be made.
  However, I reverted [3] edit of yours, as the grammar is correct. This has come up before. 'Has served' is the present perfect tense. It's the same as someone saying 'I have lived in Spain for two years' or 'He's been sick for a week'. Both refer to an existing state. It would make perfect sense for Trump to say 'I've been President since 20 January 2025' but would make no sense for Biden to say 'I've been President since 20 January 2021'. Riposte97 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm wondering, when does the survey close. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing definite. See existing comments about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: A plan beginning to firm up:

  • Close current voting on 7 Feb.
  • Start a second round of voting to decide between the top two from round 1. Top two defined as top two weighted scores—currently B and J.
  • Close second round on 20 Feb, celebrating one month since Trump's repossession of the Oval Office.
  • Add new consensus item.
  • Replace sentences 1 and 2 with the winner of round 2.
  • Pat ourselves on our collective back for a job completed.

  That gives us a majority supporting the consensus, instead of a likely plurality. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. We have a weirdly over-precise date in there now. Please close this out soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should do an WP:RFC on this, as suggested by a volunteer in the discussion board? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:RFCBEFORE, we don't go to RfC unless we are unable to reach a consensus without RfC. If we go with the plan I've described just above, we will definitely have a consensus on 20 February. Zero doubt. That is, unless we have a tie between two proposals between the two proposals in round 2, which is extremely unlikely.

  (So much for the value of the discussion board in this case.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Edited per WP:REDACT. 03:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  And are you sure we should narrow it down to 2 options instead of 3? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't a day or two ago, but I am now. Three options could still leave us with a plurality, same problem as we have now. A=33%, B=33%, J=34%. Do we want a consensus for a proposal that only one-third supported? And we definitely do not want to have to run a third round of voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is 0.6 the secondary multiplier in the weighted-average formula? 0.5 would seem more natural to me. Should it be changed? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I like B more than I like A, but not twice as much. Do you like C twice as much as B?

  Hey, why not let each voter specify that individually. You can specify 0.5 and I'll specify 0.6 and GoodDay can specify 0.916 (damn, there's that Burger King slogan again). But then someone could specify 1.0, effectively sneaking in two first-place votes under the radar. Or, we could just say 0.6 is close enough for gubmint work. (At 0.5, B and J would still be our leaders.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Edited per WP:REDACT 07:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Sentences 1 and 2 survey tally

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

---

As of 12:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC). Number of voters: 18. Closure date: 7 February.

Just vote in the survey section above. Others will take care of the update here.

Weighted score = N₁ + (N₂ x 0.6)
N₁: Number of first-choice votes
N₂: Number of second-choice votes

Prop	First choice	Second choice	Weighted score
A	Pincrete	Mandruss R. G. Checkers Space4Time3Continuum2x SusanLesch	3.4 = 1 + 2.4
B	Mandruss R. G. Checkers Space4Time3Continuum2x SusanLesch	Gluonz MannyEdit Tantomile Wikieditor662	6.4 = 4 + 2.4
C	Gluonz	GN22	1.6 = 1 + 0.6
D			0.0
E			0.0
F	Amakuru MannyEdit TimeToFixThis		3.0 = 3 + 0.0
G	Btomblinson		1.0 = 1 + 0.0
H	DecafPotato		1.0 = 1 + 0.0
J	GN22 Goszei Nythar Riposte97 Tantomile	DecafPotato TimeToFixThis	6.2 = 5 + 1.2
K	Khajidha Wikieditor662		2.0 = 2 + 0.0

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

Manual of Style/Lead section

This related discussion may be of interest. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that both versions are acceptable for governors, senators, etc. Noting, this likely doesn't cover this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing at MOS can override local consensus here. MOS is a set of loose guidelines, not policies. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Further discussions about Consensus

Please note the discussion about how to reach consensus here is being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Donald Trump#Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging relevant parties: @Mandruss @Berchanhimez that dispute is more for how to conduct things, but if you think the rules should be changed you're always welcome to post at WP:Consensus, although it may be preferred to wait until this discussion is done. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I really don't think opening this up at the noticeboard was a good move. user:Mandruss has proposed a practical resolution to what would otherwise be an intractable problem. A series of votes ensures everyone gets the chance to have their voice heard and convince others. There is not much in the way of policy for a hypothetical closer to use here. Riposte97 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I argued that this is against policy, as stated earlier with quotes. Also, a question I asked Mandruss: if, hypothetically, the majority voted to write Trump as the greatest President of all time, would you accept adding that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll never have everybody agreeing to one style, so majority is the only solution. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

So yes, you'd accept mentioning that Trump is the greatest President of all time in this hypothetical scenario? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's proposed that? Your argument seems to be about WP:CONSENSUS-in-general. WP:CONSENSUS, is where your argument should be held. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Nobody's proposed that?" I know, which is why I added the word "hypothetically" and linked it in case you missed that, but unfortunately you still did, so perhaps I should've been even clearer?

As for the consensus, if I'm correct it should be about whether the rules should change instead of about how to interpret the rules, which is why I took it to a discussion board instead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The rules themselves can be changed by consensus. So yes, if the tens of thousands of EnWiki editors all decided that it was Wikipedia policy that Donald Trump is the greatest president of all time…the site would reflect that. I'd add that I can't see anything in your proposal with a convincing policy justification anyway, so why bother wp:wikilawyering this point? Riposte97 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you see, I have little doubt that many political ideologies or even far-right movement can recruit tens of thousands of users, for example Nick fuentes getting his Groypers to have it written that Jews control the world (and denying that they're being recruited, so that it'll end up being a guessing game).

As for the Wikilawyering, I wouldn't agree with that term, I'm suggesting a problem with implementing a certain policy.

I'm not sure of the perfect solution to this (partly why I went to ask), but I am having major concerns with this idea. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tell ya what, Wikieditor. Why don't you take over the lead in this discussion, tell us what to do, and get us to consensus before March 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Well my idea is that we go to the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Donald_Trump#Superseding_consensus_#50,_sentences_1_and_2 and try to figure out how we can solve this.

I don't think I can force any of you to do anything, so I assume you're using sarcasm. Pretty funny! Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Also let me add that if you'd like to have majority voting, then I'd suggest you suggest it as WP:Consensus, and if you get others to agree with you based on logical reasoning and change the policy then I'd be more than happy to take that route. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you have that backward. You are in the minority here, so the onus is on you to ask the community to override the majority.

No sarcasm whatsoever. One should not complain about something unless they can offer a better alternative. I asked you for that better alternative here, and you have yet to offer it. You are making this effort far more difficult than necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that you're using majority opinion to discredit my opinion, but what I'm saying is majority opinion is not in any guideline.

As for when you asked me for my solution, I thought I already gave it, but I apologize as I didn't see that comment of yours, there's a bunch of comments on here and the notification box doesn't always take me there unfortunately. Perhaps I'll restate it on there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we expedite consensus here. Then meta issues can be discussed elsewhere by interested parties. Remember, we're agonizing over wording differences of little interest or consequence to readers. We just need a consensus to stabilize the first paragraph; otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place. Molehill meet mountain. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not do it on the discussion board, especially with this page is such a mess?

Also, I think it's about more than just this, it's about the rule on WP:Consensus in general, and perhaps a way to get further clarification or even rule changes for the rest of Wikipedians about achieving consensus. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this meta issue warrants some community attention. I disagree that that needs to delay this particular consensus any further. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to bring that up on there as well. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Lol. No thank you. You're welcome to stand down regarding this issue on this page, while seeking community intervention if you must. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Round Two

Notification of participants. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, GoodDay, Rexxx7777, Utter Donkey, Cwater1, Btomblinson, TimeToFixThis, Riposte97, Gluonz, SusanLesch, DecafPotato, Nythar, Tantomile, Wikieditor662, MannyEdit, Amakuru, Khajidha, GN22, Pincrete, R. G. Checkers, Berchanhimez, and Goszei: Please return for Round Two of voting, which will establish the consensus for sentences 1 and 2. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There are only two options. What is the point of a second choice? Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I thought some editors might like both options, one more than the other. If I was wrong, that column of the tally will be empty. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem fair, if there are two options editors should choose one or the other―not both. That defeats the purpose of choosing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It would defeat the purpose of choosing if first and second choices were given equal weight. But we give second choices 60% of the weight of first choices. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to note for the record that I believe there should be further debate on this topic before this final round of voting. In the first round, the options were too broad, and every one of them had issues. Even in this second round, people still have concerns with the top two choices, because they were chosen as the least worst options by some.

I suggest a different approach: breaking the two sentences down into distinct issues for discussion, and voting on them separately. This way, people can propose better phrasing for each part, and we can vote on the best option for each.

Here how I propose we do it:

• Issue 1: which is better - 1st Sentence?
  • politician, media personality and businessman
  • politician, businessman, and media personality

• Issue 2: which is better - 1st Sentence?
  • who is the
  • who is serving as the
  • who has served as the
  • who has been serving as the
  • who has been the
  • serving as the

• Issue 3: which is better - 1st Sentence?
  • 47th president
  • 47th and current president

• Issue 4: which is better - 1st Sentence?
  • since 2025.
  • since January 2025.
  • since January 20, 2025.

• Issue 5: which is better - 2nd Sentence?
  • he served as the
  • he previously served as the
  • he also served as the

TimeToFixThis (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Issue 1: really doesn't matter

Issue 2: whatever as long as you delete the options with the word "has" or anything else past tense

Issue 3: first option, you really don't need the "and current" that sounds grammatically incorrect

Issue 4: I don't really care

Issue 5: the one with also

Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Not throwing out ~16 days of work by ~18 editors. The water has passed under the bridge. Sometimes it's too late for a better idea, even if yours is better. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, maybe the next president well have a better system. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm always on the hunt for a better system. I'm all about systems. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I was just sharing my thoughts, I wasn't suggesting we abandon our current plan. Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My fault. I indented incorrectly, suggesting that I was replying to you. Fixed now. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sentences 1 and 2 survey 2

B: (word counts: 24 + 16 = 40)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

J: (word counts: 28 + 17 = 45)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

The consensus will include the linking as shown above; i.e., prior consensus will be required to change the linking in any way—including the addition of a link.

Please cast one of the following votes:

• B
• J
• B then J
• J then B

Closure at: 08:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• B as in Bam!, Bang-up, Beautiful, Benign, Best, Blessed, Blissful, Blue-chip, Blue-ribbon, Bold, Born to bear scrutiny, Bravissimo, Breathtaking, Brief, Brilliant, or Bulletproof. Choose one or more. To B, or not to B: there is no question. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I vote J! J for Jbest Joption. Riposte97 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• J makes the only sense. B doesn't have - since when he became president. TimeToFixThis (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• @Riposte97, @TimeToFixThis, "since" as used in this sentence is a time preposition, referring to a point in time in the past — see Merriam Webster since 3 of 3 preposition and BBC World Service Learn it. You can't say "since 2025" because 2025 is the present. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x agree to disagree. I don't see why that would be a problem, "since 2025" is correct because that is when his term started. I don't think anyone will be confused. Also, notice how every other politician who has taken office in 2025 has the phrase "since 2025".TimeToFixThis (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  every other politician. Quoting every parent: if all your friends jumped off a bridge ... Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well said. My version: Not all consistency is good consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. For the "since" enthusiasts: there's actually nothing wrong with the version we have now and somehow ended up with while this discussion was ongoing:
  

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman serving as the 47th president of the United States since January 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

  It's now February 2025, so "since January 2025" is grammatically correct. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually present perfect rather than continous, is correct for an event that began in the past but continues, and normally attaches to 'since' (ie he has served since January 2025 … Grandpa has been ill since Wednesday … we have been married since 1990 etc ). But present perfect is often ignored in colloquial/journalese US English. Pincrete (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and I'd be fine with "since 2025" if this was 2026. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  The time for tweaking was in Round One, if that's what you're discussing. Not changing options at this late date; if we did that, we would have to cancel Round Two and resume Round One. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Tweaking wasn't my intent, just responding to "makes the only sense". Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, I made this point in Round 1. So perhaps I ought to have said "J with rights" in my vote. Although SpaceTime is wrong about the grammar, I do think the current version reads better. Mandruss, we have two good options now, so perhaps we could pause to hammer out a stronger option J before voting proceeds? Riposte97 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Strong oppose, as that would invalidate the results of Round One, potentially changing the leaders. It would also invalidate the Round Two voting to date. Move forward, not backward, if we hope to put this to bed before April Fools' Day. Some editors may have to live with what they consider suboptimal, and I'd wager a barnstar that these minor differences will matter very little to them after six months, long after they have moved on to other monumental concerns. That's an observation I've made of myself, and I don't think I'm atypical in that regard. (I didn't receive a ping since you botched the syntax,[4] creating a piped wikilink to Ping.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hah so I did. And your point is fair enough. Let's just get through this round of voting, and I can see how people feel in a little while. Riposte97 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  This round of voting will establish a durable consensus. I hope nobody is thinking of revisiting it any time soon; that wouldn't be "putting this to bed". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• B - still my choice. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• B - but (being awkward) the second sentence of J is marginally clearer ("he previously/also served as/was the 45th president from 2017 to 2021"). It may be a US preference, but I just don't understand why ordinary mortal are, whatever their role or job is, but politicians, judges etc serve as. To my UK ears it always sounds as though they are just 'stand-ins', acting the role until the real president/senator/judge turns up!Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  The dumbbell serving as a doorstop — it's not just your UK ears. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, sounds just as silly to my NC ears for the same reason.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• B — see my comments in round one and above. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• B. An unneeded date breaks the flow of prose. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• J per my reasoning in Round One. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Of the two choices, B is least bad. Would still be better with "was" instead of the silly "served as". That still sounds like he was a make do substitute because we didn't have a real president at the time. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• J, followed by B. I still think B feels awkward and clunky, but it would work. Tantomile (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support for B, as explained before, "has served" is unnecessary, even if the reader can eventually understand it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• J then B. J is my first choice because it says that Trump has served since 2025, while B doesn’t give this information. This is an encyclopedic article, and I think that the starting date for his second term is critical information that should be in the lead. GN22 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I consider the infobox part of the lead. So it's "in the lead" for me—and prominently placed in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Btw, @Mandruss why'd u give the second choice option exactly 0.6 points? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  See this. Should I have given it approximately 0.6 points? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I mean, even with that description, it sounds like a pretty specific number. But it was already chosen, so I guess there's no point in complaining about it. I was just curious. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's a good use for a user talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• J per myself in Round 1 and GN22 here. I'm not particularly attached to "has served as" ("has been" also works), but saying "since 2025" or some other time-indicating phrase after "47th president of the United States" is non-negotiable for me. DecafPotato (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging: Btomblinson, DecafPotato, MannyEdit, GN22, Berchanhimez, R. G. Checkers, Gluonz, Amakuru, and Goszei. Please add anyone else who I may have missed. TimeToFixThis 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging: Some1, Stix1776, Slatersteven, Morbidthoughts, Leitmotiv, CookieMonster755, Zaathras, Surtsicna, Soibangla, Distelfinck, Pyrrho the Skipper, Stix1776, FormalDude, Fdewaele, Aoidh, PraiseVivec, BristolTreeHouse, Fyrael, HAL333, Wikignometry, Elli, MelanieN, HiLo48, Shearonink, Bob drobbs, WikiVirusC, Sea Ane, Nagualdesign, ValarianB, Steamboat2020, Eccekevin, and Nyhtar who are all from previous votes on the same topic in:
  • Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?
  • Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: "serving as" vs. "is"
    These discussions would also be good for the rest of us editors to look over before we make our final votes. Please add any editors who I may have missed from these discussions. TimeToFixThis 01:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Huh? Are you planning to ping everyone who has ever edited this talk page? What about the 4,115 watchers? You have a ways to go if you want to ping them all. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have pinged everyone who took part in the first round of voting and the people who took part in the previous votes on this topic on Joe Bidens talk page. I had already pinged them previously letting them know about this vote. If you would like to ping the 4,115 watchers you are welcome to do so. TimeToFixThis 07:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Everyone who took part in the first round of voting were pinged at #Round Two. That's okay: You didn't ping anybody since you omitted your signature at the time of the original edit. Two mistakes in one bold move. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Correction: I did not "ping" them directly into the first round, I messaged them each individually in their personal talk pages about this ongoing discussion. And now I have pinged them here directly. I don't know why my signature was screwed up, I didn't use the reply, I just edited the page to make it easier so I guess it didn't leave a signature. I have added that correction now. TimeToFixThis 08:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  And now I have actually pinged them here. No. You haven't. As I said. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean? They are all pinged 5 paragraphs up. TimeToFixThis 08:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  Self-quote: You didn't ping anybody since you omitted your signature at the time of the original edit. Clearly, you don't understand what it takes to make a successful ping. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  My goal is not to mislead anyone, I am trying to make sure everyone gets to make their vote and weigh in. My original choice in this vote has been eliminated so I don't really have a stake in this fight any more. I think both options left are not the best. TimeToFixThis 08:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone. I'm suggesting that you might save such things for when you have far more than 774 edits to your name. You are overestimating your knowledge, perspective, and abilities. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not sure where these personal, dismissive remarks are coming from. Are you suggesting that participation in discussions like these should be restricted based solely on edit count? Let’s keep this discussion open to all contributors and focus on substantive arguments instead.

  I also recall you previously expressing frustration about a lack of participation in these discussions:

  "I'm astounded by the number of editors pointlessly flogging the article's first paragraph, while not helping establish the consensus…" "…people complain that there was insufficient participation for the consensus, the response will be: Where were you when the consensus discussion was underway for weeks? Folks don't seem to understand that consensus discussions are important."

  If broader input is important, then we should be encouraging editors to take part ― as I have been trying to do. TimeToFixThis 09:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to the pinging and only the pinging. Obviously. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  When you change a comment after replies,[5] please do it as outlined at WP:REDACT. Another mistake due to lack of experience. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• B: The three differences between these two possibilities are "has served as", "since 2025", and "previously". I prefer not using "has served as" because of what was discussed in a July 2021 RfC about the lead sentence of the Joe Biden article. I would support incorporating "since 2025" into the lead sentence of this article, but as using "since" directly before the current year is perhaps grammatically incorrect, we might want to wait until December before discussing this. I oppose including "previously" in the second sentence of this article because it is unnecessary. Therefore, I prefer B over J for now. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sentences 1 and 2 survey 2 tally

As of 04:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC). Number of voters: 13.

Closure at: 08:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC).

Just vote in the survey section above. Others will take care of the update here.

Weighted score = N₁ + (N₂ x 0.6)
N₁: Number of first-choice votes
N₂: Number of second-choice votes

Prop	First choice	Second choice	Weighted score
B	GoodDay Khajidha Mandruss Pincrete Space4Time3Continuum2x SusanLesch Wikieditor662	GN22 Tantomile	8.2 = 7 + 1.2
J	DecafPotato GN22 Nythar Riposte97 Tantomile TimeToFixThis		6.0 = 6 + 0.0

Donald Trump and fascism

We have very substantial coverage and a dedicated, long article on Donald Trump and fascism. This is not a trivial issue but quite a serious and substantial discussion that has existed for almost a decade now. Based on its existing, extensive coverage, it would seem to be appropriate, per WP:LEAD, to include a brief summary in the lead, perhaps somewhere in the existing sentence "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics".

For example (the exact phrasing can be discussed); new additions highlighted:

Version 1: "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic, and many have drawn comparisons to fascist leaders. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics"."

Version 2 (shorter): "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, misogynistic or fascist. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics"."

--Tataral (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That appears to already be done in the 2024 Presidential Election section attributed to multiple sources:[514][515][516][517]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said, this is about the WP:LEAD. The argument is that it merits being summarized briefly in the lead based on its significance and substantial existing coverage, and that it is (at least) equally prominent as descriptions such as "racially charged, racist, misogynistic." That a topic is addressed in the body is not an argument against it being summarized in the lead; rather, the opposite. --Tataral (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this can be added to the political practice section. If anything I think the lead should mention how he is described as authoritarian, which has more academic consensus and mentions than the fascist label. One of the big things scholars who refute Trump is fascist say is that he's authoritarian, but not fascist. BootsED (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Both are significant viewpoints among academics and commentators, and broader society, but the point is that the debate is important enough to be summarized in the lead. Perhaps in the form "authoritarian or fascist". --Tataral (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't this discussed before & the consensus was 'not' to add? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was. No need to rehash this. R. G. Checkers ^talk 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

MAGA 2600:1008:B130:CA63:0:1B:BF57:9501 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not think his support by MAGA is enough to call him a fascist, we must base that on his actions, not those of his supporters. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and his rhetoric and actions have been described as fascist. There are lots of sources for it in Donald Trump and fascism, Trumpism, and MAGA articles regarding this EarthDude (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot has happened since then: everything from threats to invade neighboring countries, to the targeting of political opponents and minorities. --Tataral (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not reddit. The consensus was to leave it out. Thank you 2600:4040:1EE4:6100:6030:C13F:DDE6:238F (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus can and should change if the underlying facts change. Might (probably) be too early to tell in this instance Czarking0 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia should not change when the underlaying facts do so? Bazeon (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Except nothing has changed though, some people called him ‘fascist’ in 2017 and they still do now. The general reasons people state this haven’t changes either. So, no the facts have not changed. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Buddy, the entire concept of Wikipedia is that it is an everchanging and updating encyclopedia EarthDude (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't quite match fascism, despite he said he'd be dictator and there'd be no future (presidential?) election (like some fascism), though dictators across authoritarian part of political compass (which should be circular) do so (he switched party affiliation/independence many times, so was more centrist, but clearly to the right on most issues). However, fascism synthesized ideas from capitalism & socialism (while being against both) and used national syndicalism (maybe economic centrism) for corporatism (meaning corporate groups, i.e., parts of society, not corporations, and a type of mixed/social market economy, economic centrist statism): core tenet that society/state, business, labour get equal representatives/organizations in government. He's a businessman running the state (instating more loyalty to party/him, fewer other society/state & labour interests) and the party believes in free-market capitalism (further-right of mixed/social market). His cabinet is billionaires except one who has $500,000,000. Fascism claims to put community/collective over individualism.

Where's the standard/required fascist corporatism including other collective/society/state, labour interests: did he appoint a single representative of society or labour, rather than capitalism/business? Original/Italian fascism was supported by fair number of trade unions (they partly got their representation) and derivative ideologies claimed to be socialist (but were mixed/social, not centrally-planned socialism). Fascism was often cultural/social conservative, which cleary President Trump is (on many, but not all issues) but I forgot if that's as fundamental to fascism as much as corporatism (for some derivatives, like nazism, it was). In economic sense (on circular political compass), free-market is farthest-right equally between libertarianism & authoritarianism (minarchy, some Libertarian-influenced since Tea Party Caucus) but fascism used corporatism to move upward left there (remaining in authoritarian-right quadrant) and similarly on social issues, though usually considered farther-right socially. As part of that, fascism restricted/nationalized/shutdown companies/corporations/banks considered to be harming society: further-left (in authoritarian-right quadrant) than free-market capitalism which Republicans do opposite: deregulation. Many articles claim 'Trumpist' Republicanism became fascism, but economically they're the world's most extreme far-right ever: again, where's society & labour representation? Italian fascism had that, and derivatives did similar (though got rid of trade unions, were militarist collectivist welfare states for those allowed to be citizens). Is it more realistic to call 'Trumpism' authoritarian cultural/social conservative state-capitalism (except he claims to protect free speech, Social Security, senior healthcare (Medicare, except allowd major increase in medicine prices), right to abortion, which aspects like middle two are supposed to be in fascism, which was usually/always anti-abortion/pro-birth)? Is there actually no standard/required fascist representation of society/state, labour, nor any collectivism, rather than ideology of free-market capitalism with 'rugged individualism' and some focus on nuclear family (more than community/society)?

That being said, many reliable articles document President Trump (between terms) did 10 or 15+ things fascists always do before getting in power: secondary practice, not primary theory, mostly done by all dictators, including state-capitalists, militarists, Communists. He did mention potentially being militarist imperialist, which original/Italian, most fascism did, but remains to be seen. In order to do so, 1900s fascism was all pro-birth collectivism increasing labour to make some fast-growing strongest economies of the time, which seems unlikely today (except China).

If he says he's a dictator by all means cite/quote/reference that (or autocrat, authoritarian, etc.) for many reasons including well-documented voter suppression (Wikipedia's wider article on it documents about 3,500,000 votes, costing Democrats the 2024 election) and letting Elon Musk's DOGE control Treasury, and do closing/merging/shrinking 400/500 government departments autocratically bypassing Congress's authority, including Republicans, which most/all departments were created with bipartisanship. Only Congresspeople--mostly Republicans--themselves have authority to tell Treasury what to do and reorganize/close departments (other than a very few created without Congressional authorization). If he implements other aspects of actual fascist philosophy (by Benito Mussolini & Giovanni Gentile, or derived/neofascism) then sure, but I don't see it happening (since his party considers that against free-market).

I just really see little/no implementation of fascist philosophy, rather than authoritarian state-capitalism. One might call it proto-fascist, but some conservatives call liberals (proto-)Communist, so terms lose meaning ('everyone I dislike or disagree with') which is unfortunate/misinformation/dangerous on both sides. If he wants/instates corporatism with sufficient collectivism, sure... and some such fascist people/organizations support him, though more often (small fascist American third political parties) condemn both major USA political parties (of course some fascists partly agree and vote Republican... how many? The larger party condemns them). Authoritarian state-capitalism can become militarist imperialism (which he's considering) and remain state-capitalism (sometimes considered military junta... different sociopolitical organization than facism) but sometimes sets conditions for fascism. If that happens, it's unlikely to be Republicans, because they're free-marketists. What's more likely is such conditions (socioeconomic problems) cause major change or replacement of USA's Seventh Party System, which may or not result in future fascism. USA often had the most individualism, as do Republicans and businessmen such as President Trump, so unless the current party system is replaced, it seems unlikely he'd be fascist rather than oligarch/plutocrat dictator, with Republican free-market individualism wanting to avoid social/mixed market collectivism (fascism, etc.). They don't want welfare-type state, society & labour representation (already being restricted to increase free-market) nor supporters/their businesses restricted/nationalized/shutdown if considered to harm society, which all contradicts fascist tenets--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Supersede consensus item 30 and item 51?

The original sentence was "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic."

I think this is outdated, and should be simplified as "He has made racist and misogynistic comments and actions." This can neatly be merged in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see a need for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what outdated it? Mere passage of time is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The child article states that both the scholars and the public have viewed his comments and actions as such, I don't think we need to put weasel words in the lead anymore. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, understood now. I'm persuaded unless somebody un-persuades me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Which ones are the weasel words in that sentence? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Were actions "made" or "taken"? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, it can be reworded as "made comments and took actions that are racist and misogynistic." Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

By changing the wording. We'd be suggesting that everybody considers his comments to be racially charged, racist & misogynistic. We don't have proof that everybody does. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't have proof that everybody considers his statements to be false or misleading either, that does not stop us from calling a spade a spade in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to oppose your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The current sentence does not say "everybody". It does say that Trump made many comments that were characterized to be racist etc., and the body has numerous RS to back that up. You're proposing to tone it down (whitewash?) to say, in effect, he made the occasional racist and misogynistic comment (subtext "and who hasn't in an unguarded moment"?). You'd also have to add a verb to go with actions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The word "many" can be retained, but I would prefer merging this sentence with the next, which said "to an unprecedented degree". Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the case. I see that we're moving from discussing what his actions are perceived as, to making a discrete comment on the nature of his actions and comments. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe this discussion resulted consensus to remove "racially charged" for being just being a nice way to say "racist" and a descriptor that isn't present in the article body at all. So my preferred version of the sentence is "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic."

I don't like the comparison to the article saying that he has said false or misleading things. I think it's fine to wikivoice Trump saying false things because "Trump says this --> the reliably-sourced truth is actually the opposite --> RSes make connection that Trump said a falsehood when he said that" is verifiable and true to the standards required of a BLP. Whereas something being racist or misogynistic will almost always have some element of subjectivity and so requires a much higher bar when wikivoicing in a BLP. DecafPotato (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I glanced at it before starting this discussion and saw that it appeared to gain traction, but did not look closely on whether it achieved consensus or not. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, per my argument in the linked discussion. The "racially charged" descriptor has since been removed from the body entirely, so there is little justification to have it in the lead. Just "racist or misogynistic" is sufficient. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine with removing 'racially charged' but insist we retain 'characterised as'. He has never ceded that his comments are racist, and reasonable minds can differ. Therefore, attribution required. Riposte97 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Piped link

Kenneth Kho, please remove the link you added here. It's a violation of consensus 30 and 60 and MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

We're disagreeing a lot, lately. Unless the #30 discussion specifically considered links and decided against them, this edit does not violate it. And it's well past time for us to revisit #60 for clarification of its intent. Not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it violates consensus 30 or 60 or that it is WP:OVERLINK. I think this is a minor point subject to editorial discretion, so I'll just sit for a few days observing and see where the WP:EDITCON ends up. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho:, remove the link, until there's a consensus to add it. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I think somebody needs to challenge by reversion, per the R in BRD. They just need to put a reason for challenge in their edit summary, and "no consensus" is not a valid reason. As I indicated above, I oppose challenge per #30 or #60. I don't think this edit is prohibited by #30 or #60. Therefore, in my view, it's a valid BOLD.

This probably seems so nitpicky, but I think we're better off in the long run firming up the BRD process. It would simplify things. No better time to start than now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Edited 19:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck - I would've if I could've. But I can't until tomorrow coz of 3RR. Disagree on 30 and 60 but, aside from that, there's still MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the article link, per WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reverted.[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Must learn to do emojis. Emoticons are so last decade. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

WP doesn't think there's a difference. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Kenneth Kho's BOLD now challenged with a proper rationale.[7] Proceed to the D in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I linked it to section in the same article because it appears to be practiced a few times in this article, but I'm cool with linking it to a child article such as Racial views of Donald Trump and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per challenger Shibbolethink. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And we're back to ye olde "section links in the lead must not look like piped links to other articles" discussion . Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:American anti-communists

Should he be put in this category? Numerous former presidents are included:

• Harry S. Truman
• Dwight D. Eisenhower
• John F. Kennedy
• Lyndon B. Johnson
• Richard Nixon
• Ronald Reagan

I would argue Trump should be included too. His rhetoric against communism, socialism, and Marxism has been a central point of his campaigns, especially the most recent one. See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], from the most recent election, and [13], [14], and "Donald Trump: Anti-Communist" from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

Pinging @Mandruss:, who reverted my edit with the argument that "pretty much goes with the presidency of a capitalist country." Yeah, but even using that standard he's especially outspoken, and the category isn't necessarily very selective (I mean, Martin Luther King Jr. is in there).

Kingofthedead (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

My browser "Find" function finds no occurrence of "communis" in the article. Seems to me you're putting cart before horse. If it isn't significant enough for even a brief mention in the article, it isn't significant enough for a category. And I don't care much about what other articles have done—not all consistency is good consistency—pursuit of cross-article consistency can stifle the evolution of the encyclopedia, put an arbitrary cap on quality, and cause stagnation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Almost all American politicians claim to be anti-communist, but we don't put every single one in this category. We should have some good, solid sourcing that describes Trump as anti-Communist to a greater degree than normal before adding him here. BootsED (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a defining characteristic R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No. The Victims of Communism piece is a 2017 op-ed on a website where another op-ed calls Pete Hegseth "a bulwark of civil liberty" opposed by the "anti-Christian nationalist-industrial complex". The other sources you cited are about Trump calling his political opponents communists and socialists — has anyone seriously argued that, e.g., Harris is a communist or socialist? Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not so much that Trump claims to be anti-communist, it's that he claims that virtually anyone who opposes him is a communist. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

lol no. there are 5 nominally communist nations remaining, though NK is a hereditary dictatorship and Vietnam & China have a degree of open-market reform. there are virtually no "communists" to be "anti" to anymore, it is not a defining trait for a 21st century president. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reason (arguably also about anti-communism, and his rhetoric fits category) but isn't he good buddies with Kim Jong-un... kind of contradiction for the category?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Right, at least one of those he seems to have no issue with, no he is not "anti-communist". Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't a vast majority of Americans have described themselves as anti-communist during the Cold War? I'm not sure that's even a worthwhile category. But in Donald Trump's case, it's probably not even true. If a communist country offered him a lucrative deal, he'd take it. NME Frigate (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

A vast majority of American would still describe themselves as anti-Communist. But wouldn't be able to really define Communism.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Add another position to infobox

I’m not entirely sure how relevant this is, but given that Donald Trump was Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission, which was established by New York mayor Ed Koch in 1982 to finance the construction of the Veterans Memorial Plaza, it is a public service position that could be included in the infobox. Jasper Chu (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't justify infobox space. Debatable whether it warrants space in the body prose; I suspect not simply because of a shortage of RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

RS coverage? Jasper Chu (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

RS = reliable sources. First paragraph at WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

At this article, "proportionate" to only a few reliable sources generally means omission; we simply don't have room for more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I still think it would be misleading not to mention or include it, as the current content gives the impression he’s had no prior public experience, when in fact he did, which I feel is best mentioned or explained under Political career of Donald Trump. The co-chairmanship he was appointed to was under the NY city government after all under Ed Koch. Jasper Chu (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this prior public experience is not worth noting in a space-constrained, one-page biography of a 78-year life. I'm going with that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He was named to this commission, but what did this experience actually consist of? What did he, specifically, and the commission as a whole do? Or was he simply a well known figure (with lots of money of his own and lots of friends and associates with money) who was picked simply because he could draw attention (and dollars) to the project just by having his name mentioned? Show us sources that are more than a list of names. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Exclude, as the infobox is long enough. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Exclude, not noteworthy. The NYC Parks & Recreation webpage of the memorial doesn't mention Trump. He's mentioned in this 1984 NYT article, and he doesn't appear to have been popular with the other members of the commission or particularly involved in the commission's work. (The direct link to page 8 of the archived version may take a couple of minutes to open.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate section headings in the article, Part II

This concerns second-presidency section headings that duplicate first-presidency headings; currently:

• "Early actions"
• "Domestic policy"
• "Immigration"
• "Foreign policy"
• "Personnel".

A recent discussion received participation from only four editors before it was auto-archived, and there was no clear consensus. This is something that needs more attention since it will affect all of our editing lives.

When there are duplicate section headings:

• Following a second-presidency-duplicate section link in the page history will take you to the corresponding first-presidency section.
• Same for links on a contribs page.
• When you click "Publish changes" for a second-presidency-duplicate section, you will be positioned at the corresponding first-presidency section.
• However, the section links in the table of contents will still work as expected, so readers are unaffected.

Normally, the duplicates would mean that it would be impossible to wikilink to a second-presidency-duplicate section. I have addressed this by adding qualifying anchors to the second-presidency-duplicate section headings. These anchors are the respective headings followed by " 2". With those anchors in place, it's now possible to link to second-presidency duplicate sections by using the anchor instead of the heading. For example: second presidency early actions. (Editors unfamiliar with the article will have to learn that trick and may accidentally link to the wrong section.)

An alternative is to eliminate duplicate headings by qualifying either all second-presidency headings or only the duplicates. E.g.,

• "Second presidency early actions"
• "Foreign policy 2"
• "Personnel (2025–present)".

This would eliminate the editor inconveniences listed above, and eliminate the need for the anchors. The question for us here is whether that's the best solution. If it is, we need to decide on the best specific way to qualify the headings.

At this moment, I have no opinion or recommendation and could go either way. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two problems with the anchor.

• When editing a second presidency section with the same heading as a first presidency section, clicking Preview will display that section, but clicking Publish changes displays the first presidency section with the same heading. Not a big problem but confusing at first.
• Linking from another article. It's not a problem when you link by copying e.g. Donald_Trump#Early_actions_2 from the url. It is a problem when you link the way I usually do, by typing [[Article name#Section heading]], not knowing that there's another section with that heading higher up in the article.

My preference is no change to first presidency headings. Second presidency headings e.g., Personnel (2025–present). Is [ampersand]ndash[semicolon] to prevent wraparound necessary in headings? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

e.g., Personnel (2025–present) - For all second presidency, or only the duplicates? Is [ampersand]ndash[semicolon] to prevent wraparound necessary in headings? - Use of ndash doesn't prevent wrapping. You may be confusing it with nbsp. But wrapping is unlikely to happen so early on a line. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

confusing it with nbsp: yes. Are ampersandndashsemicolon necessary because the anchor span class value can't contain the – character? Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, they're interchangeable. Some editors including me prefer to use ndash because it's clearer for editors. In some fonts, it's hard to distinguish between – and — (endash and emdash, respectively)—particularly if you don't have both side-by-side for comparison. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it worth looking at the way that the Grover Cleveland article dealt with this same issue? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Not exactly this same issue. He has only two duplicates, "Foreign policy" and "Military policy". Editors there have chosen to qualify both duplicates on both sides, first and second, and only the duplicates. Following that example, we would have:

• "Early actions, 2017–2021"
• "Domestic policy, 2017–2021"
• "Immigration, 2017–2021"
• "Foreign policy, 2017–2021"
• "Personnel, 2017–2021"
• "Early actions, 2025–present"
• "Domestic policy, 2025–present"
• "Immigration, 2025–present"
• "Foreign policy, 2025–present"
• "Personnel, 2025–present"

Those headings interspersed with a lot of unqualified non-duplicates, such as first presidency "Conflicts of interest" and second presidency "Mass firings of federal employees and hiring freezes". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Being a believer in "crossing that bridge when we get to it", I don't see the necessity to add "2027–2021" to the first presidency sections or "2025–present" to non-duplicate second presidency sections. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss idea looks practical to follow in the case of duplicates. Following the example of the Grover Cleveland article seems like a safe way to move forward. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've convinced myself that the "editor inconveniences" listed above are unacceptable. We again lack sufficient participation to form a consensus. I plan to wait a few more days and, if there is not a substantial increase in participation, implement the solution with the least change to section headings. That happens to coincide with Space4T's position. If editors don't like it, they can participate in discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think my position here is just to leave the sections with their duplicates. Yes, it creates some small inconveniences for editors — but links from other articles are very easy to fix and the "preview"/"public changes" section discrepancy is by Space4T's own admission "not a big problem." On the other hand, renaming duplicates creates a much more awkward situation for readers because there's no logical reason why "Foreign policy, 2025–present" needs to be a subheader under "Second presidency (2025–present)," which already makes very clear what the time period being talked about is, and looks inconsistent with the non-duplicates. I wish there was some snappy policy I could link but the gist is that editors should Always prioritize the experience of the reader, even at the cost of a few very minor inconveniences to editors. DecafPotato (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: I just want to be sure you understand what you're supporting; you didn't mention inconveniences 1 and 2. Go to the article's page history and locate this recent edit to second presidency "Foreign policy". Click on the section link, "Foreign policy". You will find yourself at first presidency "Foreign policy". Is that an acceptable inconvenience, for all duplicates, for all editors including editors not familiar with the article, for the remainder of the article's life? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Following the Grover Cleveland example for an FA-article still seems best. Except for the "Mass Firings" section, all of these subsections match up between the 1st presidency and 2nd presidency. You can just append the listed years already in the top section heading to solve this issue like the FA-article for Grover Cleveland does successfully already. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause — Grover Cleveland was promoted to FA in 2008, and the version promoted had duplicate section headings between the two presidency sections. DecafPotato (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Those links are to the very old version of the article for Grover Cleveland when it was originally promoted. The current version updated many times since then uses the format, for example, of "Foreign policy, 1885–1889", adapting the dates for 1st presidency and 2nd presidency. I'm thinking that it looks ok and unambiguous in the updated format. Mandruss version above for Trump appears to adapt this in a usable format for Trump. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that I just now learned those section links are clickable and that they are easily fixable by either just knowing to type "2" in your edit summary or simply by checking the diffs to see what section was actually edited, yes, I do think that's an acceptable inconvenience. DecafPotato (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a big ask in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And also is this fixable by simply appending hidden comments to the duplicate headings? I genuinely don't know but it might work. DecafPotato (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Unclear what you're talking about, but I'd say no. The software ignores hidden comments. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding information about transgender focus?

Donald Trump very heavily fixated on transgender people and used them as a main campaign topic, though it isn't mentioned in this page much at all. I do think these are important additions just because of their prominence. I think key things that could/should be mentioned somewhere in regards to the 2024 campaign/initial actions:

"Overall, the party spent $222 million on anti-trans and LGBTQ ads during the 2024 campaign."

"Trump's executive orders include efforts to eradicate "gender ideology," bar trans people from military service and restrict transgender care for minors."

Additionally efforts to ban from sports.

I am new to wikipedia so any feedback/thoughts are appreciated. EM 1NH3 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Latest report in The New York Times appears to be yesterday: "N.C.A.A., Following Trump’s Order, Excludes Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports". The decision, effective immediately, came a day after President Trump signed an order barring transgender girls and women from playing in women’s sports at federally funded educational institutions. By Juliet Macur. Feb. 6, 2025. The article is here: [15]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's part of Trump's method of "flooding the zone", propose a solution in search of a problem and keep everyone's attention off Musk and his minions attempting to take over federal agencies. Citing the NY Times article mentioned by ErnestKrause: Appearing before Congress last year, Mr. Baker said that there were fewer than 10 transgender athletes among the 500,000-plus students who play N.C.A.A. sports. "It's like taking a bulldozer to knock down the wrong building," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia University Law School and an expert on gender and sexuality law, adding that the policy distracts from the serious problem of girls and women not having equal opportunities in sports. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that transgender topics should be included more specifically in the section on Trump's Second Presidency. In everything I write below, I am referring to the section of the article on Trump's Second Presidency.

Trump's executive actions restricting transgender rights are relevant to his early Presidential actions and his Administration's actions, and are also part of the broader "2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States."

Trump issued EO 14168, 2025-02090 (90 FR 8615) [federalregister.gov] targeting "gender ideology" and defining gender only in terms of two sexes which contradicts decades worth of scientific research and reporting from reliable sources. ( [NBC News], [AP News], [Reuters] ) OPM also drafted a related memo trying to implement that executive order.

A second executive order, EO 14183, 2025-02178 (90 FR 8757) [federalregister.gov], banned openly transgender people from serving in the military, [New York Times] which has led to ongoing injunction relief lawsuits in court [AP News]

A third executive order, EO 14187, 2025-02194 (90 FR 8771) [federalregister.gov], banned federal funding to gender-affirming care, which has also led to ongoing injunction relief lawsuits in court. [AP News]

A forth executive order, EO 14190, 2025-02232 (90 FR 8853) [federalregister.gov], attempts to restrict discussion of gender in K-12 schools and funding to those K-12 schools. [ABC News], [UCLA Williams Institute]

A fifth executive order, "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports" [whitehouse.gov] (it doesn't have an official print yet), banned funding to any education institutions that allow trans women or girls to participate in women and girls' sports. [New York Times], [AP News], House Republicans also recently voted for H.R.28 "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025" which also restricts transgender women and girls from women and girls' sports. [New York Times] But the House bill might not need to be mentioned in this article specifically, editors can debate this. Keeping in mind "Is the House bill something relevant enough to Trump specifically, and how likely is it that the bill would be signed into law by Trump?", etc.

There have been news reports of ongoing Administration actions to eliminate the use of any of the terms "transgender", "gender identity", "non-binary", and more similar terms from federal government websites, similar to the ongoing restrictions on DEI terminology and the current shuttering of government websites and programs in general. [NBC News], [AP News]

The Executive Orders restricting trans rights and the generally anti-trans rhetoric are part of the wider rollbacks of Title IX, DEI, and other nondiscrimination policies, which are discussed in the article, but the focus on transgender people has been more extensive and contentious both by the Administration and by news agencies, so I think it justifies more specific inclusion in the article, specifically in the section on Trump's Second Presidency.

One issue to think about, though, is when implementing transgender topics in current politics, following Wikipedia neutral point of view policy and other policies. On a contentious and polarizing issue, editors may have to take extra care to accord to Wikipedia policy as well as not inflict undue harm to a marginalized community.

Editors can also debate a few things:

1. Which transgender-related topics should or should not be included in the article?
2. Which sources should be cited?
3. How much of the article should be dedicated to transgender-related topics?

KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This material is already under development at the article for Second presidency of Donald Trump. It might be useful to try to bring it in there first. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Add a paragraph to the lead about his 2nd term?

I wrote this, but then edit conflicted with someone:

Trump began his second presidency by deploying more soldiers to the Mexico–United States border, implementing a mass deportation program, starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico, removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the federal government, trying to shrink the size of government via the U.S. federal deferred resignation program and putting most USAID staff on leave, freezing most foreign financial aid, attempting to freeze most domestic financial aid, and withdrawing from some international organizations such as the World Health Organization.

Any interest in adding this to the bottom of the lead? If the WHO part is unimportant that can be removed. I think his anti-LGBT executive orders might deserve a mention if we can think of a good way to say it. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I recently looked into web guidance about sentence length. One academic source (University of Calgary in Qatar) recommends a maximum of 24 words for most sentences. This guidance is not atypical; long sentences are difficult to read. You have an 82-word sentence there. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Truthfulness

Excellent job compiling the information for this page.

Please consider renaming the header 'Truthfulness' to 'Lies' or 'False or misleading statements' per the Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Many thanks for your work! Dsalerno (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Lies" would violate current consensus item 22. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think 'False statements' or 'Promotion of falsehoods' would be better headers. It accords with the main article of the section and 'Truthfulness' doesn't really share the connotations of the section. Using the term "false" also doesn't imply malicious intent, per item 22. I think most people looking for this information about Trump wouldn't expect him to be compared to truthfulness but rather to be compared to falsehoods. KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It could be better to use to term "misleading statements" as well, as Trump is fact-checked both for statements that are blanket falsehoods as well as statements that lack context, make claims without evidence, or are otherwise misleading. KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, 'False or misleading statements' would be consistent with the Main article. Thanks for mentioning. Dsalerno (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox: 45th & 47th, or 47th & 45th?

Re: [16][17]

I agree with Surtsicna's rationale. GoodDay's editsum is not quite right: 45 comes before 47 numerically, but the 47th info comes before the 45th info. Surtsicna made them agree so a reader doesn't have to spend 15 seconds figuring it out. That's called good design. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Here & at the Grover Cleveland article. Perhaps we should consider putting the first term info, before the second term info? That would be better than the proposed - 47th & 45th, 24th & 22nd, set up? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You're the one always going on about cross-article consistency. I believe all officeholders have most recent first. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

How are the numerals handle in infoboxes of office holders with non-consecutive terms? This actually covers many bios, even outside the USA. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think it's sufficient to do what's optimal for Trump and Cleveland and not worry about others at this point. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Putting his first term & second term in chronological order, would be better. That way, we keep the 45th & 47th order. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That way, we deviate from the standard, potentially causing some amount of confusion/distraction for readers who look at a lot of officeholders' infoboxen. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that information should be presented chronologically, with more recent offices coming below previous offices. It is confusing enough that we first have Trump preceded by Biden and then succeeded by Biden. But let's at least have it all in the same order rather than mismatched. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend opening an RFC on this general topic, for all office holders with non-consecutive terms (where numbering is shown), tbh. Would MOS:INFOBOX be the proper place? GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if you think this kind of consistency, between a minuscule number of articles, is important enough to devote that much editor time to. And we can have a local consensus here pending a community consensus, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I do support the idea of switching the terms of office within the infobox, to line up with 45th & 47th; 22nd & 24th. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Why this is utterly trivial nonsense? Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Per long-standing Wikipedia tradition. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump
45th & 47th President of the United States
In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice President	Mike Pence
Preceded by	Barack Obama
Succeeded by	Joe Biden
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2025
Vice President	JD Vance
Preceded by	Joe Biden

Is this what we're considering? Flipping the non-consecutive terms of office. → — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Who's "we"? You're considering that. I'm not considering that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump
45th President of the United States
In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice President	Mike Pence
Preceded by	Barack Obama
Succeeded by	Joe Biden
47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2025
Vice President	JD Vance
Preceded by	Joe Biden

I think this looks better. Or just flip the numbers (47th & 45th). Or, hear me out, remove the numbers altogether. They do not mean anything and are not part of the office. But that's a tall order. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Am I wrong that "most recent first" is the very consistent site-wide convention? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, there was a recent discussion in which there was a rough consensus that those headings should occur once per office, not once per term. Trump's two terms are not the same as Obama's three offices, and they shouldn't be treated the same. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a reader caring how many times the heading occurs. A reader cares only that the information is presented clearly. Switching the numbers should be a relatively painless way to achieve at least some more clarity. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors asked the question, "Do the readers really care?", they would have half as many things to fret about. Can't have that! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've asked for more input at Village Pump (proposals), concerning this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the only solution that makes sense — to me, at least. It was unfortunately pooh-poohed a couple of weeks ago because Grover Cleveland or because it's the same office or s.th.
| order = 47th
| office = President of the United States
| vicepresident = JD Vance
| term_start = January 20, 2025
| term_end =
| predecessor = Joe Biden
| successor =
| order2 = 45th President of the United States
| vicepresident2 = Mike Pence
| term_start2 = January 20, 2017
| term_end2 = January 20, 2021
| predecessor2 = Barack Obama
| successor2 = Joe Biden

Donald Trump
47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2025
Vice President	JD Vance
Preceded by	Joe Biden
45th President of the United States
In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice President	Mike Pence
Preceded by	Barack Obama
Succeeded by	Joe Biden

Trump is the 47th president now, he was the 45th president from 2017–2021. The order 45th at the top, incumbent 47th underneath makes no sense. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Your version is acceptable. I assume we'd do the same for Cleveland? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter in Cleveland's case, IMO, because his terms are both in the past. In Trump's case it matters because he's the incumbent, and the infoboxes of officeholders list the positions they hold/held in reverse chronological order. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Surtsicna's idea of deleting the numberings, would be acceptable. But, only if we deleted numberings from all the US office holder bios. I suspect there'd be much opposition to that idea, however. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Trade War" in February 2025?

With regard to the statement: "Trump began his second presidency by implementing a mass deportation program, and starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico." Suggest changing to: Trump began his second presidency by initiating a mass deportation program. At this point (2/7/25) there is no trade war with Canada & Mexico so that claim should be removed. Re: mass deportation, it remains to be seen if it will be implemented, though it's fair to say a plan has been initiated. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:E94A:5111:7EE6:B855 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean the 30-day grace period? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed the threatened trade war — Canada and Mexico are off the table for now, and I don't think the sources count another 10% on some exports/imports to and from China as a trade war. I also removed that he has concepts of a plan] to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act . He's been considering declaring a national economic emergency for at least a week now but hasn't done so. I don't know that "mass" is the right qualifier for "deportations" at the moment but left it since ICE and others arrested people very publicly and deported planeloads of shackled people. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I doubt merely setting tariffs then getting counter-tarrifs--even if it was still all countries he said he'd tariff--is a full-fledged trade war... seems that might need both sides increasing & increasing tariffs, because then it's like they took more action against the other side (might also include aspects similar to a cold war, like criticism or insults or oppositional rhetoric)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Criminal conviction in infobox

I added the module "Infobox person" with two parameters. These edits then replaced the "Infobox person" module with the "Infobox criminal" module.

• Does consensus item 66 prohibit "Infobox criminal" as a module embedded in "Infobox officeholder"?

Adding the criminal conviction to the infobox was expressly exempted in the closing of the RfC. Infobox person does not have the "conviction" parameter, but it has the parameters criminal_charges, criminal_penalty, and criminal_status, allowing us to add the conviction and the unconditional discharge sentence. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to apply some brakes to this type of expansion since Reuters on 29 Jan has published that the cases are subject to appeal and appellate review here: [18]. If the case is vacated or reversed as in a vacated judgment then this type of expansion might turn into a goose egg or a red herring. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump formally filed a notice of intent to appeal and now has six months to do so. He hasn't appealed yet, and, unless and until his appeal is successful and not, in turn, appealed by the prosecution, the conviction stands. Red herring — what logical fallacy or literary device to lead readers or audiences toward what false conclusion? Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe earlier discussion has established that we don't wait until Trump has exhausted every last little bit of due process before we call a conviction a conviction. Inclusion in the infobox is a matter of weight, not fact. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything about conviction or sentence in the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sort of siding with Mandruss on his view regarding the Infobox here. The conviction information is already indexed in the information side box for the "Donald Trump series" and this Infobox addition seems to just double it up. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The series box doesn't mention the conviction. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The series box has a tab for "Civil and criminal prosecutions" which can be clicked for the details to show up. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The details don't mention a conviction. I assume you're referring to "New York indictment (Stormy Daniels scandal·Karen McDougal affair·financial fraud)" hidden in "Civil and criminal prosecutions". That doesn't mention that the case went to trial and that Trump was convicted and sentenced. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you already know that the tab which you are referring to is now shown as "New York Felony Conviction"..., which seems to be the word that you were looking for. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, because I figured out how to update the series. I still think, though, that the conviction ought to be listed in the infobox. We're listing "awards and honors", so why don't we list dishonors? Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Not anymore.[19] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

"Taking action aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce"

Original heading: "Precision is important". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"Taking action aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce" is a very misleading, euphemistic, and vague wording that makes it sound like he is doing something entirely normal. Like he is proposing reductions to Congress and so on, not de facto shutting down whole agencies at will, attempting to get rid of countless FBI employees who investigated the Congress stormers. That is not how sources describe what's going on. Many sources and very highly regarded experts are describing this as a coup. "Overseeing abrupt agency federal workforce reductions that bypass traditional legislative processes" is far more precise. --Tataral (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of editorializing. That's what he's doing, as reported by reliable sources. It's not Wikipedia's job to word it in the way you want, describing it as a coup for political reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to the lead did not follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It was imprecise, because it claimed that Trump has overseen 'abrupt agency closures'. USAID has not been abolished, nor has any other agency. If you want to call this a coup, please establish consensus here first. Riposte97 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You did not address the points about the material you reinstated. Where is the consensus for the strange and biased wording "taking action aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce"? Nobody said anything about changing it to coup at this time, although countless commentators, Democrats and others describe it as that[20][21][22] It only underlines why "taking action aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce" is a biased and misleading and imprecise way to describe what Democrats, commentators and the media describe as an ongoing coup. --Tataral (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you can find some RS that support your preferred wording, you can propose a consensus to change that sentence. Riposte97 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tataral, as others have said, your proposal is nothing but wishy-washy editorializing. Moreover, Trump, being President, is the head of the executive branch, so stated in article II, section 1, clause 1, or known as the Executive Vesting Clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”. As such, President Trump has ample power to remove inferior officers to him. That is not a coup, period. These people serve at his pleasure, and the Supreme Court has stated it many times, so much even Congress knows this: “In 1926, Chief Justice and former President William Taft addressed the President’s removal power in Myers v. United States, holding that the executive power includes the power to remove Executive Branch officers.”. Trump absolutely can, and shown he does, fire people and that’s that. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Blatantly biased, citing a singly barely related source. The context here is clearly different, and unprecedented. This is being widely reported on as such. 71.76.146.141 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"Blatantly biased", says the one with no evidence for any of their claims. I won't bother to further engage in what is clearly drive-by complaint on this talk page by an IP user. If you have any constructive commentary, or evidence to disprove the above in regards to removal power, I would enjoy hearing it. Until then, pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

by an IP user. Don't hate on IP users. Hate on IP users with two edits to their name, including this one, when they show no evidence of significant editing experience under other IP address(es). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Chairman of the Kennedy Center?

On February 7, Trump announced he was firing members of the Kennedy Center board of trustees and appointing himself chairman.[23][24] The Kennedy Center released a statement commenting on its unprecedented nature, but wrote there “is nothing in the Center’s statute that would prevent a new administration from replacing board members”.[25] If this becomes official, it should be added. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Added where? GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the article second presidency of Donald Trump? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

it should be added is not a policy-based argument. It's your editorial opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss here, this isn’t actually all that notable. New administrations can and often do replace officials from the old one. Moreover, conservatorship of an agency has happened before such as with the 2008 conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, albeit with board consent, but still the point stands. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It's surely notable that Donald Trump has named himself as the chairman, isn't it? First person to do that, right? NME Frigate (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Broadly no, a chief officer of one of the three branches already is and has been the chancellor or chairman of an otherwise independent and subordinate agency. Namely, the Chief Justice of the United States is typically the chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution. Neither agency conservatorship nor the heading of a subordinate agency by its chief officer, in the before mentioned example, the chief judicial officer of the United States, is particularly unprecedented. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The position of chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution is indeed normally held by the Chief Justice, but the position of chair of the board of directors of the Kennedy Center is not normally held by the President. Wikipedia's article on the Kennedy Center itself cites a statement from the Center saying that what Trump (says he) is doing is unprecedented. As far as I can tell, it's never happened before. Or can you point to a case where another President has also been the Kennedy Center chair?

Howver, it seems that he can't just appoint himself chair: the chair is elected by the board. If he has removed the current chair, David Rubenstein (chair of the Carlyle Group and owner of the Baltimore Orioles), and various other current members from the board, as he claims, then the remaining members will need to elect a new chair, who may or may not be Trump. NME Frigate (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

demagoguery versus populism?

Some media/news & social science (politics, economics) writers from centre to left have been writing President Trump never has been populist rather than demagogue. Western (and much/most other) politics has conflict between elitism (powerful/rich) & populism (common people, masses). Demagogues focus on speaking to masses in ways they understand, agree/like, but demagogues often are elitists, not populists. Populism involves masses organizing to advance their interests, and elite demagogues say they will, but often don't, or just partly.

Scholarch Plato (Aristocles) of (Classical) Athens criticized Leader/General Pericles of Athens as being demagogue, while others complimented him as populist. I like both Plato & Pericles, regardless which he was. It's true a significant percentage of working-class Americans (even a few labour/trade unions) support President Trump, even as a movement, but that doesn't in the least necessarily make him populist: most/all politicians/parties (typically most elites) have supporters/movements, and his entire cabinet are billionaires, except one who has about $500,000,000 (powerful/rich elite, just with different viewpoints than such involved with and funding Democrats).

If President Trump was populist, he'd have appointed more working-class people, but I doubt he ever appointed one, and he'd have tried to make Republicans focus more/mainly on issues even vast majority of their working-class supporters want (necessities such as affordable housing including for Republican poor, such as homeless veterans, many from rural or industrial poor backgrounds who are steadily losing family farms, or can't afford family/single apartment in any city on one minimum wage, fair wages to help reduction of world's largest wealth inequality (including many rich Democrats/supporters), tax breaks not mainly/regressively for larger rich/companies (which are mass industrial-scale farms, (multinational) corporations, (international) banksters), some the latter two supporting Democrats & anti-isolationism-/nationalism), Social Security, socialized/single-payer healthcare or in addition to private insurance), but Republicans (2016 to 2020) spent more/much time against some/many such issues, such as voting hundreds of times to end even semi-universal healthcare even many working-class Republicans paid taxes into and depend on. Recently (USAID closure) his mostly-rural supporter base lost billions in USA government business that bought farm/ranch products wholesale, and some essential veterans (maybe considered more right-wing group) benefits were cut (last time and planned/done this time) so a fair number of Republicans are concerned/alarmed with conflict between 2000s 'big government Republicanism' (mix of Austrian economic school of thought fiscal responsibility & Keynesian deficit spending since President Bush 2, and what President Trump would have to do to retain these social programs) versus Elon Musk's potential minarchy largely abandoning their mass supporters' necessities/livelihood/subsistence issues. Non-isolationist/-nationalist conservatives (classic Republicans) often consider tariffs an outdated method replaced (even for populism) with free trade, because tariffs' cost is shunted to working-class including small-businesses, many (if not majority) whom support Republicans, but globalist free trade agenda mainly benefits/increases American economy/business (overall, not some sectors) using internatonal labour, such as used by most large Republican donors and his cabinet.

The question is: is President Trump more demagogue or populist? Historically he was Republican, then Democrat, then independent, then Reform (centrist), now Republican, so it's clear he's (some/few ways) more centrist and at least listens to mass/working-class/leftist economic issues such as promised won't cut Social Security nor Medicare (nor abortion) diverging from average conservative/Republican elite (out-of-touch) dogma, but remains to be seen (2025 to 20 2028) whether he'll command/restrain his party to do populism (help working-class) or perhaps recruit educated/knowledgeable working-class Republicans to handle their class issues, rather than only elites.

Various people into politics--on entire political spectrum--prefer populists (associated with Classical democracy) saying they care about the masses, and others caution against them and prefer (educated) elitists (associated with Classical republics) saying elitism focuses more on what keeps society cohesive/functional rather than only mass issues then potential collapse, such as Socrates & Plato & Aristotle said democracy can lead to masses giving themselves too much money (not only for good reasons) from public funds which collapses economy then society (and others said similar in specific modern ideas) and modernly also collapses to populist revolutions, usually hard-left socialist/communist (USSR, PRC, many similar, but rarely also cultural conservative mixed/social market economic populism such as 1922 to 1945 Italy (also when taken over by NSDAP) like what PRC has slowly been becoming since 1980). Both ancient Roman and modern American republics used ideas from Socratic-Platonic-Aristotlean republicanism/meritocracy, and democracy, and the Roman republic had conflict between optimates (patricians/powerful/rich/elitism) & populares (plebeians/disempowered/masses/populism), though when there was power imbalance--even populares getting power--that led to societal collapse (violence & civil war, takeover to become empire).

Reliable historical sources called Pericles either populist or (elitist) demagogue, but I don't know politicians described as such are always clearly one or the other (nor am advocating populism nor demagogue elitism): might be 50%, and though I read several articles from varied sources (left, centre, right, working-class, middle-class mostly non-professors, some sociology professors) saying one or the other, I don't know I have energy/time to re-find those, and strongly avoid political editing, and have no interest to start. Just saying: can Wikipedia check more sources to see if experts overall explain one or the other, or is it not clear-cut, but then cite/quote/reference various views even if reliable ones conflict (as with Pericles' case)?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 05:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is word salad. If you have a suggestion to add or change text in the the article, the present sources to support the change. Otherwise, the digressions on Greek are best left to Intro to Philosophy. Zaathras (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure (with no evidence nor reply on details, just logical fallacy baseless attack near bottom of hierarchy of disagreement). You have bad grammar/spelling (word salad) and don't understand what I said. Maybe more knowledgeable people will comment who comprehend or are interested in the difference, which definitions/etymology (and historical ideas that led to USA) date to (relevant) Classical world. Also, no: detailed/obscure political ideas such as 'demagoguery versus populism' don't belong in 'Introduction to Philosophy' rather than a political philosophy/science text (maybe beyond introductory).--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Good luck with that approach. There aren't a lot of students of Classical history around here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands articles, portals, wikiprojects, wikitaskforces, etc. on such subjects, though those involved might not edit this particular article much (I'd rather study such subjects than edit it) you don't have to be a student of such subjects (just helps with details) to know the difference between demagogue and populist.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

(I'd rather study such subjects than edit this) -- Then do so. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, Dchmelik. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You added nothing to the discussion (like Usenet: 'me too'). Ridiculous essay which has redirects to it making no sense. I highly recommend regularly read more (articles, (e)books, (e)periodicals, websites, well-written posts at least starting medium-sized, etc... on Internet's original forums (Usenet) that means 300 to 500 KB))--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Does that high horse come with a stepladder, or do you just close your eyes and jump? Zaathras (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Dchmelik, are you proposing something for this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Demagogue and populist are not mutually exclusive terms. BTW, the concept of populism developed in the 19th century. Assigning modern political labels to ancient politicians is problematic. TFD (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Modification to intro's mention of Trumpism

Right now, the first line of the intro's fourth paragraph reads "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism movement". I personally think we should reinstate the earlier "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement" – however, if you guys don't want MAGA mentioned here, we should probably drop the word 'movement' from what we currently have (i.e., it would just read "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism"). Thoughts? WikiEdita65 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

At the time current consensus item 68 was established (last month), it read: "Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement." That's just FYI, as that was not covered by the consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well then, we should probably fix it. It doesn't say "of the Trumpism movement", it says "of Trumpism movement". We need a 'the'. WikiEdita65 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Obvious mistake, fix uncontroversial.[26] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

How can one person lead two movements that may be the same but not even separate organizations? 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) seems more a slogan or goal, but the acronym (and many similar new ones) might be a movement symbol--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say they are rather synonymous “Trumpism” and “MAGA Movement”, that is. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 US Constitutional Crisis

It is being openly discussed in more venues and reliable sources than I can begin to list. Is it time to acknowledge the elephant (pun intended) in the living room? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Not yet, as we do not know if anyone will blink yet, its not even been a month. Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

What's the quality of the sources saying there's a constitutional crisis in the United States? Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Well it's currently the lead story at the New York Times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW this also just crossed my news feed within the last couple minutes... Trump to pause enforcement of law banning bribery of foreign officials. A Google search is turning up a lot of discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any academic sources for the scholars the NYT is quoting? Paywall so I couldn't see who the "scholars" were. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article. I have a subscription and am allowed to share a limited number of stories to as many people as I want per month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

You could've just copied the url and looked at archives in the wayback machine to bypass paywalls lol EarthDude (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't always work with NYT and no longer works at all with WaPo so it's not the best solution. I will admit I didn't try this time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say". Scholars say lots of things. What do lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other judiciaries say? Has any actual legal process been started to contest the actions of Trump, or is it just things that some people say? Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, multiple legal processes have been started to contest various actions of Trump, some of which have prevailed in their early stages (much can still change), and Wikipedia has documented these processes. But that in itself doesn't mean a constitutional crisis has been reached: every president faces legal challenges, and every president loses some of those legal challenges. And as far as I know, no U.S. court has ever said, "this is a constitutional crisis." The phrase is a term of art in scholarship. NME Frigate (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind, media tend to over-react for the sake of upping readership/viewership. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok so the scholar in question is Erwin Chemerinsky. I'm looking to see what he's written about Trump and / or constitutional crises. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The second expert cited is Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Chemerinsky is preeminent progressive legal scholar, along side Laurence Tribe. That is not to say that his bias is disqualifying, a legal scholar is still a legal scholar, regardless of being a progressive or not. but important to keep in mind. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This is going to be a real long four years if I have to repeat this ad-nauseam but WP:RS does not come with an ideological test. Him being, in your opinion, "progressive" is not something we consider when determining if he is a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

And a quick look at Google Scholar suggests he's probably the right person to identify an in-progress constitutional crisis. [27] As a bit of a devil's advocate position it might be WP:TOOSOON and we would have to make sure any fork that addressed the putative constitutional crisis avoided WP:CRYSTAL but there seems to be a grounding that at least some academic experts think the USA is presently in a constitutional crisis that might be the basis for a novel article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I never said that, you are misrepresenting my comment, and in fact I specifically argued against ideological tests: " That is not to say that his bias is disqualifying, a legal scholar is still a legal scholar, regardless of being a progressive or not.". I just thought it may be of interest. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I support the creation of this. Kinda surprised an article on this hasnt been made already, its pretty front and center now EarthDude (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article titled "Constitutional crisis," apparently first created in 2005, that includes sections such crises in multiple countries, including a section about the U.S., which lists seven examples, including the current situation, for which four sources are mentioned (in the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and two New York Times articles). NME Frigate (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis is a pretty generic term that can cover a number of situations. There have been many, mostly in other countries. If we are going to address the present situation with a stand-alone article it should have a name that specifies the who and when aspects of the crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick update: at the moment, that section of the "Constitutional crisis" has been removed. NME Frigate (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Representative Al Green from Texas, has 'again' called for impeachment. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This is actually old news from a week ago in the Atlantic article here [28] which used this term in the article's title. The Wikipedia article for Constitutional crisis states fairly directly that this is a term used for political debate using the words: "Constitutional crises may arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or simply conflicts among various factions within society." ErnestKrause (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

USAID

I will wait 24 hours to revert to what we had:

Trump and Musk dismantled most of USAID.

FriendlyRiverOtter and other editors seem to be interested in which judge blocked what, and they've sourced their statement to CBS which is an acceptable source. I doubt that sentence will remain here by tomorrow. Of more concern is what the world's richest man just dismantled. It's not an "attempt". Simonm223 wrote in their edit summary:"Need RSes for this - so far the news is still saying that the judge halted the workforce cuts". Here are two quotes from AP.

Administration appointees and Musk’s teams have shut down almost all funding for the agency, stopping aid and development programs worldwide.

Earlier Friday, a group of a half-dozen USAID officials speaking to reporters strongly disputed assertions from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the most essential life-saving programs abroad were getting waivers to continue funding. None were, the officials said.

See you tomorrow.

Sources

-SusanLesch (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

These sources are from thd 7th. As the situation is rapidly evolving they would be superseded by more recent sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

However this appears to capture where we stand right now: [29] Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's one of Knickmeyer's from last evening, Updated 5:05 PM PST, February 10, 2025. That it's evolving is a reason to keep this simple. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC).

To follow up, yesterday I added the USAID section in Second presidency of Donald Trump under DOGE. There's much more room there. On Washington Week with The Atlantic last week, Anne Applebaum called it a "test case of cruelty" for the American people. I'd like to find and add the AP article that explained Rubio's waivers are not in force. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Cabinet(s) in the infobox?

I've noticed someone added Trump's two cabinets into his infobox. Do we have cabinets in the infoboxes of his predecessors? Should we have the cabinet(s) in the infobox of bios of US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

No. They're not personal details and belong in the Infoboxes of the presidency articles. They were added on January 22. I just removed them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Support removal. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempted assassination

I think his attempted assassination in Pennsylvania should be mentioned in his general bio around the part about the 2024 election. It gives more context, and still isnt talked a whole lot in the section where it mentions it. Just a suggestion.2600:1011:B170:20AC:D4F9:34D6:4A80:E5E6 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We already mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Expansionism

This sentence was removed for using too many citations: "He expressed intent to annex Canada, Greenland, the Panama canal, and Gaza." I believe that it is notable enough to mention, however unlikely it may be to really happen. Should it be reintroduced using fewer (one or two) references? Alenoach (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

He talks bollocks a lot, lets wait and see if anything meaningful comers out of this, or if he forgets it ina week. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You note an interest fact about Donald Trump: he often fails to follow through (or even to seriously attempt) what he has says he will do. I wonder if that point itself somehow should be mentioned in this article. There are already a couple references to Trump promising and failing to do specific things (like constructing a border wall, not to mention having that paid by Mexico). There would need to be reliable sources going beyond the specific instances and noting that this is a pattern with him. I imagine there were some retrospective articles on his first term that made this point. NME Frigate (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

FAQ suggestion

So do we need a new statement?

"Please read the article before making a request".

Thoughts? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Does anybody read the FAQs before we point them out to them? I think not enough to count. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

But we can at least just type "see FAQ". Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Or, we could type "Please read the article before making a request". Or, we could skip the scold and type "Already in the article" or something. This is not consuming a lot of time in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not a single mention of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

Plenty of well documented primary sources including pictures and video. They were friends for appx 15 years.

The relationship between Bill Clinton and Epstein is a major blurb on Clinton's page.

If it's relevant for Clinton, then why not Trump?

We need to be consistent, it's very important. Necrambo (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources. We use reliable sources. --Malerooster (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of good sources too if you cared to look :) but thanks for the correction?

Also plenty of mentions of a relationship with Epstein on Bill Gates page.

So a relationship with Epstein is important for Clinton and Gates' articles but not for Trump?

That makes no sense seeing as the information on their relationships came from the same sources that include Trump. Necrambo (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We're not going to make the same mistakes they made at Bill Clinton. I just took a look at Bill Clinton#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and it's a whole lot of innuendo from around 2015. One of the sources is actually headlined "Plenty Of Innuendo, But No Hard Evidence Of New Clinton Sex Scandal". Much of that section needs to be removed, and the rest rewritten, per WP:BLP and WP:BLPPUBLIC. The Epstein documents unsealed in 2024 didn't contain any allegations of wrongdoing by Clinton or Trump. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

If the only connection between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were that they had once been friendly, I would recommend against mentioning Epstein in this article, and I would say the same about the articles on Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and most other people that Epstein mingled with. Epstein clearly made a practice of cultivating rich and powerful people, most of whom just knew him as a wealthy investor, with only a few getting caught up in his nefarious activities (and there's no evidence that Trump, Clinton, or Gates were among those few). And most of these connections are noted in the article on Epstein himself. However, in the case of Donald Trump, the question is complicated by some other connections:

1. In Trump's first presidency, he appointed Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. Acosta was the U.S. Attorney whose office had overseen the 2008 case in which Epstein got a sweetheart deal. And Acosta resigned two years later after Epstein was arrested and questions arose about why he had approved the 2008 agreement.

2. Michael Wolff, author of one of the first tell-all books about Trump's presidency, Fire and Fury (2018), later said that Epstein was a key source for that book and that Epstein had influence on the Trump administration in its early days. (To be fair, Wolff is not always considered reliable.)

3. Epstein killed himself in a prison that ultimately was under Trump's control and that of Trump's then-Attorney General, Bill Barr (whose father may have hired Epstein, who was not qualified, for his first serious job as a teacher at a private school in 1974). Now obviously lots of prisoners take their own lives, which is awful, and that generally has nothing to do directly with the Attorney General (who does, however, bear some responsibility for managing a Bureau of Prisons where this is prevented) much less with the President. But in this case, Epstein's suicide while under Trump's care somehow became the evidence for a ridiculous but wildly shared conspiracy theory claiming that Trump's political opponents had murdered Epstein, and a number of Trump's supporters still believe that Trump is at any moment going to release files which will support that claim and the larger QAnon conspiracy theories.

4. When Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was arrested for her role in Epstein's activities, Trump said "I wish her well," which is probably just Trump being ineloquent as usual but which is still a weird as hell thing to say.

There are other points that could also support a reference to Epstein, such as Trump praising Epstein in a 2002 interview and adding, "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Creepy! And I'm probably forgetting some things. All of this has been amply documented in reliable sources. The question would be how do you boil it down to a short reference in this article? NME Frigate (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a lead story in the news. It has not been a lead story in the news for weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to me? I didn't say anything about Trump's Epstein friendship being a current news story, and I don't think anyone else did either, but I might be overlooking something. NME Frigate (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Answer to both your 4-point post and Space4T in response to this Epstein thread. There are presently no mentions of Epstein in the Trump article here, though there are 58 in the Epstein article, who passed away 6 years. Its not clear how this material is relevant now to the Trump article 6 years after Epstein's death. Its possible that the release of his audio tapes during the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign had some passing relevance, however, it was not of lasting effect and does not seem to have affected the election results. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there would need to be news about Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump to correct the possible oversight of failing to have mentioned Epstein in the Trump article before. Isn't it pretty normal on Wikipedia for someone to read an article, realizing something notable is missing, identify reliable sources for its notability, and then add that? (Or the opposite: someone may read an article, notice that something trivial is included, and remove it.) If articles could only be updated when there was news about a subject, there'd be a lot less content on Wikipedia. And also, Wikipedia is, as one guideline says, not news. NME Frigate (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply backing up my point.

I will attempt to push this issue using the information you neatly provided. Necrambo (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Biographical detail

@Nikkimaria: We are lucky to have your oversight of this article. You are, second only to Firefangledfeathers, the best editor I have seen on Wikipedia. Will you please work with me to replace two things that yesterday you termed "overdetail" in your revert? I am open to your suggestions if the following don't work for you.

1. Some say Trump learned to be litigious from Cohn, and others say Trump found Cohn to be like-minded.

   This is needed to explain Trump's muscle memory that lawsuits will always help him no matter the outcome. His reflex to sue brought us the second term barrage of executive orders with no regard for legality. Somewhere this article needs to say that Trump is litigious. It's a defining personality trait. My sources are Buettner and Craig who are both Pulitzer-winning New York Times journalists who wrote a recent Trump biography (2024). I propose to keep the sentence and drop the footnote.

   "Many have said Trump learned to be litigious from Cohn, and others say that Trump found Cohn to be like-minded.

   Can you agree?

2. In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name in real estate deals to build luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were ever built.

   This is simply wikt:fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. When we hear Trump ask the Palestinians to move and offer to build a tourist resort in Gaza we ought to know he has done this not once but forty times before. Customers have been duped and lost deposits on luxury projects from Waikiki to Florida, while he got paid every time. I absolutely believe there's always a first time, but this history should inform the present. I propose to shorten the sentence slightly.

   In the 2000s, Trump licensed his name to build luxury condominium towers around the world—of forty, none were built.

   Can you agree?

Sources
References

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, I broadly agree that his attitude towards litigation is important for the biography. I don't think how he got that attitude (or from who, for example) is important. I'd recommend trying to find a way to use that footnote as the actual information. To me the important parts (that are DUE) would be that he does not care if he wins or not, and that he invents phony enemies if he loses.

I don't believe the second one is a fool me once situation. Those were all ventures he undertook as a private individual. The idea for Gaza is that the US would take over the land, and then other private developers would develop it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, care to suggest text?

For the second, Trump never intended to be the developer. He licensed his name for millions. An example, in Tampa, Florida, the "other private developers" were a former professional wrestler, a dentist, and someone who'd built small apartment buildings. All unvetted and inexperienced. He claimed he, Melania, and Donald Jr. were buying units. "Buyers had to come up with a 20 percent nonrefundable deposit to lock in a unit." The developers found out after the groundbreaking ceremony that their site couldn't support the weight of the towers without supports. Trump sued them when they ran out of money. You're correct that the US government is a separate entity, but I have to question Trump's vision in light of 40 failures. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "According to (source) [if attribution is needed, depending on how many sources/the strength of them], Trump believes in litigating without regard for the chance of success, and if losing the litigation, makes up phony enemies to justify the loss" or similar?

For the second, I'd be worried about a BLP violation - like you said, he just licensed his name. That doesn't make him ultimately responsible for the failure of those developers to conduct business appropriately. If there was a source that explicitly said "Trump has a history of licensing his name to unscrupulous/poorly managed development ventures, significantly more often than other people who license their names" or similar, then we could maybe include it, though I'd question if it's due. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

berchanhimez, thank you for the text. We should use it. Please tell me first though, how could #2 be a violation of WP:BLP? Why the secrecy here? FYI, in 2006, two years after The Apprentice launch, Trump announced "construction projects in Atlanta, Dallas, Delaware, two in Florida, Hawaii, Philadelphia, New York City,...White Plains...Panama, Mexico, and Israel". He was not the developer but he cultivated that illusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

On the first, I'd agree, given what you've presented here, that the information in the footnote is actually the more important piece of this. I don't have access to the source you've used for that quote - does it relate to a specific lawsuit, or it's just a general statement?

On the second... I'm not sure I follow the argument you're making. If he didn't intend to be the developer and was just licensing his name, I wouldn't see that as giving him any obligation to ensure the buildings were actually built. You could say he was lending his name to questionable people, if the sourcing supports the assessment you've given here, and that could be folded into the sentence that precedes your addition. But IMO the whole Gaza "proposal" is a very different issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Add President of Kennedy Center to Donald Trump

As seen on Michael Kaiser’s Wikipedia page where it shows his position of the Kennedy center from 2001-2014, it should be added to Donald Trump’s page as he is the president of the Kennedy center Opama420 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree. Not only is there a strong precedent for adding it, as you point out, but it is also quite notable for a US President to server in that role. It is not an ex officio role. Revangarde568 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Kaiser was president of the Kennedy Center, i.e., he ran the operation for 14 years, and that's what he's notable for. (FWIW, the Kennedy Center's current president is Trump's "Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions" aka Richard Grenell.) Trump's predecessor as Chairman of the Board of Trustees was David Rubenstein from 2010–2025. His Infobox didn't list the chairmanship. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Add nicknames

Giving a complete list of AKA's might be helpful for future generations. 2601:283:4F01:7540:D934:DFE2:BD8C:1E9F (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

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

---

Edit info box to include Donald Trump’s current role as president of the Kennedy center, look at Michael Kaiser‘s Wikipedia page as example of a President of Kennedy center Opama420 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• not done. That particular fact is not WP:DUE for this article. As a rule of thumb, when you google "Donald Trump", how many of the articles are talking about his role in serving as chairman of the Kennedy Center? I think it's very few if any. Therefore, not DUE for inclusion here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  What’s your definition of how many articles is suitable, and with this logic why does Michael Kaiser have an info box with his service to the Kennedy center? It is clearly an important thing to note because there is precedence for infobox for the president of the Kennedy center. Opama420 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think what Shibboleth is trying to say is that when you search up "Michael Kaiser", the top thing that will come up is his role as the President of the Kennedy center, while if you search up "Donald Trump", the only thing that will show up is his role of president. AsaQuathern (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, former positions held by individuals would also be removed on thousands of Wikipedia pages with this logic being applied with only their position they are known for existing. No one remembers Avril Haines for her role as Deputy National Security Advisor, she is known for being a director of national intelligence. Either the president of the Kennedy center as an info box should be eliminated on all pages where it exists or it should be included in Trump’s info box. Opama420 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Reinserting challenged material, "hundreds" of Jan 6 rioters (redo)

@EucalyptusTreeHugger: You added new material to the lead, I reverted, and you reinserted the material with a minor change (replacing "dozens" with "hundreds"). IMO that still counts as a violation of the contentious topic restrictions in effect on this page. "Hundreds" is also wrong, he pardoned ≈1,500 of them, as the body states. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit leaves only the potential process vio. That appears to be moot, but the editor should familiarize themselves with the ArbCom-dictated process at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

In case my editsum wasn't clear: if it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico for people living in the U.S. may have a place in Second presidency of Donald Trump (section "Make America look stupid"?), but it's not important enough for the body of this bio, let alone the lead. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss, you edited while I was adding the aforegoing text to my comment. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that Treehugger removed the Gulf but reinserted the Gaza and Greenland proposals. I challenged the entire addition. Gaza and Greenland are also not mentioned in the body, per WP:NOTNEWS. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025 (2)

He did not take away transgender rights. That needs to be redacted 2600:1702:EC0:DAD0:B80B:8078:F416:5E88 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Trans in lead

@Riposte97 Why do you not think we should mention his trans EOs in the lead? Far less significant actions of his second term are already there Snokalok (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I take issue with your wording, that the EOs have the effect of 'stripping rights from transgender Americans.' Riposte97 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you prefer "implement restrictions on the activities of transgender Americans"? Snokalok (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The more accurate, neutral phrasing would be "rolling back federal recognition of gender identity". Either way, this policy is far less notable than the mass deportation programme and overhaul of the federal government. I have removed the other insignificant "actions", as their presence in the lead is WP:UNDUE. MB2437 21:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)