Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 131

Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op
This is surely a subsection that this article can do without, especially given the article's extreme size. An example of something that seemed much bigger at the time than it does now and will seem in the future. Thoughts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This was discussed here. That discussion resulted in it being reduced from a level 3 to a level 4 heading. Maybe now it could be reduced to On June 1, 2020, federal law enforcement officials used batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray projectiles, stun grenades, and smoke to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square. Trump then walked to St. John's Episcopal Church, posing for photographs with a Bible. Many religious leaders and military officials condemned the treatment of protesters and photo opportunity itself. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 16:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were several previous discussions,, , , and especially this one. The proposed trimming misses the point, i.e., the seeming involvement of the military (in the persons of Milley and Esper) and the backlash against it. It's still in the news, e.g. It should probably be moved into a section with 2021 Capitol storming 2021 because the failure to secure a perimeter around the Capitol and adequately prepare for a mob attack seem to be connected to the reactions to that photo-op. Don't have the time right now to look up the sources; it's still a developing story anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The two events are clearly not connected, and it would be wrong for us to connect them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That incident was a watershed moment of among other things abuse of power, military involvement, and violation of first amendment rights. Extensively sourced as such. Needs to stay as it was.  SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, it was just another one of the many controversial events that Donald Trump has been seen as responsible for. No particular significance beyond the week in which it happened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some treated it as the equivalent of Kristallnacht. In fact, no dictatorship ensued. The protesters were not primarily protesting against Trump. The arson attack against the church was a valid police issue. Trump critics came off half-cocked and pumped the issue up. But now we can see that it was a blip on the radar. The incident is adequately covered by its own article. We don't need to refer to every incident Trump was involved in — from nappies to Napoleon.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the issues: first amendment rights of lawful and peaceful demonstrators; using federal law enforcement, including seemingly the U.S. military, represented by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Milley, and the secretary of defense— with a National Guard commander later admitting 'excessive use of force'—for no other reason than Trump wanting to cross the street for a photo-op. This isn’t nappies, it’s wannabe Mussolini, "a defining moment of the Trump presidency" and a stark contrast to the lack of preparation for and the initially laid-back handling of the January 6 riot (The Guardian, WaPo). The wannabe Mussolini tried to get "his military" (NYT) to do his bidding, and—when they made it clear that their allegiance was to the Constitution and not to him—he sent his flock of conspiracy theorists and alt-right militants. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting the NYT cite, dated September 25: The confrontation in Lafayette Square near the White House in June crystallized for the Defense Department just how close to the precipice the military came to being pulled into a domestic political crisis. Military helicopters and armed members of the National Guard patrolled the streets next to federal agents in riot gear so that the president, flanked by Mr. Esper and General Milley, could walk across the square to hold up a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. Current and former members of the armed forces were outraged. ... Both men, but General Milley especially, were so sharply criticized by former military and Pentagon leaders for taking part in the walk that they spent the days afterward in serious damage control. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Jack, it was extensively discussed and is only more significant in light of recent events. Also, your undocumented reference to Kristallnacht is inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say happened is indeed what happened, but it's just not particularly notable or important. The idea that a much more significant event which overshadows this one makes the Lafayette Square incident more significant is completely ridiculous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it's just not particularly notable or important: You’re entitled to your opinion but many current and former military leaders, major newspapers (see above), and experts disagree. makes the Lafayette Square incident more significant: You’re misrepresenting what I wrote. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)  This just in: WaPo, Jan 14, 2021 Adding quote: These two demonstrations, at the most prominent symbols of democracy in the nation’s capital, will define Trump’s legacy, highlighting the divisions he has stoked and the disparate treatment of Black and White people in America by law enforcement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 123, you are saying "no" without responding to the reasons this content was adopted by consensus here. Please review the talk archive, RS narratives, and the reasons given in this thread. You can use dispute resolution, but right now there is not support for your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference to Kristallnacht is a fair representation of some of the claims made in this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific than that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x, looking at the balance of newspaper sources, this is not especially notable. We cannot, and we do not, give extended coverage to each event that is called "defining" or "significant" by newspaper sources, as there are far too many. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 123, you continue to tell us it's insignificant without addressing the arguments against changing this consensus text. You could tell us why you think the militarization and escalation of ordinary routine policing, later disavowed by Gen. Milley, is not as significant as the sources tell us. Or you could start an RfC to establish a revised consensus. It's pointless to repeat "no" without engaging in the discussion here. So long as you do not continue edit-warring the text, nothing more will come of it, but please do not edit the text again without consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop wilfully misrepresenting what I am saying. I have no opinion on how significant the event is. I am saying that the sources do not say this is particularly significant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this the Schrödinger's cat equivalent of discussion, saying that sources both said it was significant and it wasn't? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I said both times that the balance of sources does not indicate this content is significant enough for the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is the 1st sentence in past tense if he's still alive?
This is the only article (of a person who is alive) in the entirety of Wikipedia where the first sentence is in past tense. Shouldn't it read something like "Donald Trump is a businessman and former television personality whom served as 45th president.

The current status of the first sentence of the article says he WAS president in past tense and no present tense description of trump, suggesting he is dead. Is this some sort of fantasy by the editor who wrote the sentence? Bias? Can we please fix the sentence?

Megat503 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording is the result of a lengthy discussion. Please see the next section which has the link to the discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

At what time tomorrow should the word "current" be removed from the description of Donald Trump's presidency?
Donald Trump's presidency is coming to a close. At what time should it be removed? Félix An (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On January 20, 2021, when Biden is sworn in. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More specifically, 12pm Eastern time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be exact, his term automatically expires at noon, even if Biden isn't sworn it yet. (For example, even if Biden officially takes the oath at 12:03 p.m., which would not be unusual, Trump still is no longer the president at 12:00:00 pm.) Neutralitytalk 01:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I always remove currants right away.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)
Good afternoon! I want this page to reflect just as JFK’ page refers to his nickname as Jack, Trumps should be referred to as what most might call, the worst president in american history 2601:642:4700:AF90:8CCB:1657:42FC:B70E (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to provide an RS supporting this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (3)
Donald WAS the president. He lost office. Abarnesh (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Pahunkat (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021
i saw you forgot some facts about some pages i was researching 2601:140:8400:2F50:B43D:984:CB9:CAC4 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to suggest some edits?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Editorial bias in "Recognition" section
Well, I added a couple of the awards that Trump was given from other countries including, yesterday, the highest award from Morocco, the Order of Muhammad, and they were immediately deleted as "TRIVIA" (15:44, 16 January 2021), leaving eventually the ONLY entry in that section being that Trump had had relatively trivia honorary doctorates revoked! Wikipedia really needs to get its act together on political topics as neutrality has gone out of the window in recent years, using highly selective citations to push agendas rather than attempting to obtain a broader NPOV. Harami2000 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

To my mind it should be a list (if we must have it) of only highly respected awards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Morocco's highest order is probably notable. I definitely don't support a list, though. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 19:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a main article (List of honors and awards received by Donald Trump) where both awards plus all the other major and minor honors are listed. Who gets to make the decision whether the orders from Marocco, Kosovo, and Saudi Arabia are more important than the ones from Georgia (the country), Afghanistan, or Kentucky? The revocation of honorary doctorates is notable because it's way out of the ordinary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't include things for being unordinary though, which would be trivia. I removed some honours a while ago but kept the doctorates being awarded and revoked, but maybe we shouldn't have such a section at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a "Recognition" section which was deliberately edited to ONLY list revoked honorary doctorates (effectively DE-recognition) to the exclusion of the highest possible awards that countries can give would seem, to me at least, to be open to charges of POV. No section at all is preferable, albeit that could still be seen as "sweeping any positives under the carpet" as relatively few people will ever look at the "awards" page. Harami2000 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be OK with removing the whole section. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as long as there's the separate page. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 03:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember folks, if RS don't care why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Trying to push editorial responsibility on this article “onto RS” is a mistake in reasoning. That ideology breaks down for someone like Trump, whose every action (or inaction) is covered by RS, even including when he gets 2 scoops of ice cream rather than 1. To say inclusion (or lack thereof) in this article isn’t wholly editorial discretion is simply not true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So is relying on wp:or to determine what is and is not a notable award. But we do have wp:undue so we can say "if a major RS does not deem this noteworthy neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s a hazy line with this particular subject is all I’m saying. Whether content should be covered here, in a related article, or not at all, is often total editorial discretion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What is actually going to happen to the lead?
The discussion above regarding what to change the lead to seems to have no consensus. Obviously, something has to happen in ~75 minutes, but what should it be? The last proposal (with 's adaptation) Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States, serving from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and real estate developer. seems to have the strongest consensus as a temporary solution. I will be monitoring the page closely to prevent any disruption, and so can make any changes if needed. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Describing him as "was the 45th president" makes it seem like he has died. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Obama's lede says "is an American politician and attorney who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017", and Bush before him says "is an American politician, businessman, and artist who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009". Why are we not using the same format of "who served as the..." here as well?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not bound to follow wording from other articles. This needs to be decided on this page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well we've got half an hour. One suggestion is Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who served as 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and real estate developer. I re-iterate my point that this will most likely be a temporary solution. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any good reason to change "businessman" to "real estate developer" or "before entering politics" to "before being elected" we should try to keep the changes to a minimum. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We should use this temporarily. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it simple change it to: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politican who was/served as the 45th president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Was makes it seem like he’s dead. Saying he “is an American politician” seems to be problematic, however, as politics has only been a few years of his life. Though his legacy will be as a president, not a businessman, I’m not sure that directly correlates with being a politician. Obama and Bush were career politicians. But, well, “is an American businessman who served as the 45th president” sounds off. No objections to Giraffer’s temporary solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Was - There has been reasoned opposition to "served as". We don't say "Tommy Lasorda served as mgr of the Dodgers" or "John Gotti served as head of the Gambino crime family." or "Gandhi served as the liberator of India."<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, Gandhi was dead. Same with the other two. Also, Trump is still alive I presume. So this comparison is already fundamentally flawed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(I apologise for the mass ping but this is urgent). Unless anyone has any major opposition I'm going to go with Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and buisninessman. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't say was at all: that implies that he died. We say Donald Trump is the former President or whatever. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, was is misleading, but only if used right at the beginning. Giraffer, I support that lead with the is wording as long as the wikilinks are not removed. It's clean and simple. Mandoto (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * C'mon. Giuliani was mayor of New York. Bernie Madoff was a hedge fund manager. Lady Gaga was the singer at Biden's inauguration.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. The opening line of any BLP should never be " was" unless they're dead. You say " is the former..." — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spy-cicle💥: keep it simple. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"waS" does not imply he died.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Follow up from WP:AN - discussion on how to best write the lede for thsi article is certainly heated and like everything else on the encyclopedia will continue to evolve. That being said, as we are often sourced to other high visibility services - removing the is president part (as has actually already happened) is at least exceptionally worth rushing even if the 'was' / 'served' argument isn't resolved completely.  Reverting to "is" would be factually inaccurate and do a disservice to our readers - the discussions above should continue civilly and edit warring over single words isn't useful.  Give the discussion some time and try to come up with the best prose for our readers please. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be done with consistency between articles. Living ex-presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter all get the "who served as"... which is not my preferred wording (I'm an "is a former" kind of guy, and have removed "serves as" from many any article), but lacking consistency risks being seen as a POV issue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as I think the “Trump isn’t other presidents” argument is often used as an inappropriate way to escape POV editorial responsibility, I think it’s correct here; Trump isn’t really a politician, though his prime route to notability is now being a former president (though not a career politician). Not quite sure how to word his lead - yet to see a good wording proposed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead now says that he is a businessman in the first sentence, and in the second sentence that he was a businessman (again). I tried to fix it, but someone didn't agree and reverted. Thayts  •••  17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Was" is shorter, simpler, and accurate. Neutralitytalk 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My problem was not so much the tense, but that "businessman" was mentioned twice. But I see one of them has been replaced by "politician" again. Thayts   •••  18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems to me we had a consensus for an interim solution. What's with this brandnew discussion? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion started with "The discussion above regarding what to change the lead to seems to have no consensus.". But don't ask me. Thayts   •••  19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my badly worded way of saying: 'I don't see any result to that discussion, what is going to happen?' A couple people responded to my question indicating that they didn't like Levivich's proposal (which I mentioned as seeming the most likely to be implemented), so in the interest of keeping the article stable I found a temporary wording no-one seemed to hate, and implemented that instead. Apologies if anything I did seemed rash, but I figured it was better to have a version no-one was going to immediately edit war over than one multiple people disagreed with. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 23:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedians are terrible at policing the boundaries of discussions, is what. We tried to have a full discussion above, with room and time to spare, but alas no one came in to close it. That means that, in the short term, the only salient question is what aligns most closely with the status quo. Personally, I think it's clear that "was" is clearly closer to the status quo ante of "is" than "served as", and that that should be restored. Everyone commenting on the underlying issue rather than on that basic process question needs to knock it off; we can have a more definitive discussion once we're past the disruption of inauguration day., there was a workable consensus above; it just never got the close it needed to formalize it. We're certainly not going to come up with something better here scrambling while the transition is happening live. We need to go with the best we have, and that's the discussion above, not the mess here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just stated what happened and did not intend to join the discussion. Thayts   •••  19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you still have your revert available? I don't want to go against 1RR, but the current live version with "served as" clearly goes against the prevailing consensus and most reasonable status quo of "was". ought to revert themselves, but if they refuse, someone else needs to do so. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to join the discussion, but I would be opposed to "was" as it sounds like he is deceased. So I'm staying neutral for now. Thayts   •••  19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is astonishing. Can somebody explain how using "was" to describe someone's previous office implies they are deceased? Especially if we are saying he is a politician who was a president. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, he still is and always will be the 45th president of the United States. It's a quirk of the English language - when discussing things that don't change about someone (such as being a specific president of the US), saying "was" implies that the person is no longer alive. This can be remedied easily by saying something like "served as" - but I'm not sure why people refuse to allow that here - as is done for most past presidents. The only explanation for not following that precedent here is some animosity towards the phrase "served as" which is absolutely absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll do the last one
It seems to me like there is no major opposition to the last suggestion, so at noon I will change the lead to Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before being elected, he was a television personality and businessman. I will keep the wikilinks. Thank you all for your input. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who made you king of the castle? Would have been nice if you had pinged the editors involved in the lengthy discussion that you were obviously aware of and decided to take over monitor. Like it or not, the last iteration of the discussion had a consensus of 9 supporting, 3 opposed. You can't waltz in at 9:53 a.m. on the day, have a sort of discussion with whoever happened to be looking at the talk page at the time, and close it at 4:57 p.m. with seems to me like there is no major opposition.  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no one made me anything. I wanted minimal disruption, so I started a thread to impose a temporary solution. Say what you will about what I did, but it was better than having nothing at all. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I managed to find a wording that would temporarily work without getting reverted. I don't care what it says, so long as people aren't edit-warring over it. That was why I started it, not to hijack a discussion and try and twist it my way. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 9:3 isn't nothing at all, it is a consensus for an interim solution. If you don't care what is says, how about changing "served as" to "was"?Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. That was in the one I implemented, and as you stated above there is/was consensus for it. Also, I apologize if any of my actions came across as sly - they were all meant in good faith to prevent disruption. It didn't seem like any action was actually going to be taken on the 9:3 discussion, so I asked what was going to happen and eventually that led to a new discussion. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's back to "served as" now. Per Talk:Donald_Trump and further discussion, it seems that "was" is more appropriate. Or am I missing something? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. See also Sdkb's comments at and . My hands are also bound by 1RR, but if you want to make the change, please go ahead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please make the edit. The rest of us have our hands tied by 1RR, but you or anyone else who wants to do so have ample justification (compared to the edit switching to "served as", which didn't even have a summary and was incorrectly marked as minor); just cite current consensus item 17. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done per the above, and per the fact that the only thing he "served" was his own ego. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest was elected as a replacement for served as. This satisfies both arguments and sounds natural to my ears.  <b style="color:#256eff">Jare</b><b style="color:#0044cc">dHW</b><b style="color:#00297a">ood</b>💬 03:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just 2 minutes left...
Nothing would happen if we placed it earlier by just two minutes... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made the change. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The national nightmare is over. It seems like everything's been changed to the past tense, now. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and people wonder why there are so many concerns of WP:NPOV smh Anon0098 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What "national nightmare?" Stop emoting. Tpkatsa (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought “national” was rather an understatement. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is covered by it, but WP:NPA is a good read. You also might want to take your website off of your userpage, as you have an article there that says all leftists are liars. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ever notice how edits go back and forth when statuses are about to change? &#91;&#91;User:Rickyrab2&#124;Rickyrab (2nd account)!&#93;&#93; &#124; &#91;&#91;Talk:Rickyrab2&#124; yada yada yada&#93;&#93; (old page: &#91;&#91;User:Rickyrab&#93;&#93;) (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Arrest warrants
Continuing from the discussion above, should it be mentioned in the article that Trump has two arrest warrants issued by Iraq and Iran for the killing of Soleimani? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The two sentences can be seen removed here.

Sources: Reuters, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Euronews, The Sun, Fox8, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Daily Mail, France24, Khaleej Times, Haaretz. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No - It's theatre, like the Vermont towns that wanted to arrest Bush & Cheney. ValarianB (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be somewhat more relevant. I wish that SD had mentioned what the warrants had been issued for in opening this discussion. They are specifically related to the US killing of Soleimani. That the US did this and that Trump ordered it isn't disputed, and is directly admitted to by the US and Trump. In general, the issuance of such arrest orders would be theater. A town in Vermont doesn't even stand to have jurisdiction over something as nebulous as "crimes against our Constitution." However, the charges in the warrants regarding Trump are not so nebulous. They are specifically related to the killing of Soleimani, which Trump admits he ordered. As he was an Iranian general, Iran definitely has at least the appearance of standing to issue such a warrant, and the crime took place on Iraqi soil while Soleimani was in Iraq on official business with the Iraqi government, so they also have at least the appearance of standing to issue such a warrant. The general idea that he has arrest warrants out on him isn't necessarily notable, but the fact that the warrants are specifically regarding the killing of Soleimani and issued by countries that actually have jurisdiction regarding that killing, that is. We discuss the killing of Soleimani in this article, and I do think that it is worth mentioning, as one sentence, that Iran and Iraq responded with the issuance of arrest warrants. We mention in that very section how Trump publicly threatened to retaliate against Iranian retaliation of firing at US bases in Iraq by saying he would attack Iranian cultural sites. We go so far as to say such retaliation on Trump's part would have been a war crime. But, that retaliation never happened, so is that not also just "theater"? If we are going to mention the proposed, but never executed retaliation against a retaliation against the killing of Soleimani, I don't think it is unreasonable to add the arrest warrants by the countries in question against Trump for the killing of Soleimani, even though they likely will never happen. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I added that they were issued for the killing of Soleimani.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes Since we mention that Trump ordered the assassination of an Iranian general in Iraq, it would make sense to mention that arrest warrants have been issued in those countries. TFD (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes It's a direct result of his foreign policy, so it seems relevant to put in with the killing of Soleimani. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes- Very notable and important information that a president has two arrest warrants from two different sovereign nations. Also widely reported in reliable sources. Definitely belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes For reasons I stated above to provide context on why these warrants are relevant to content already in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If we do mention it, this only needs to be mentioned very briefly, along with the events that caused the warrants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See here. it was very briefly, two short sentences.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - He killed Soleimani, this is the direct result. Also, if this was anyone else, it would definitely be included. Just because it's Trump doesn't mean that he's exempt from anything. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 22:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Countries such as Iraq and Iran are known for this sort of "political warrant" - I note that everyone here leaves out that this actually isn't a warrant - it's a request to interpol to arrest Trump - which Interpol denied - because it is a political warrant at its core. The inclusion of this is not any more encyclopedic than including the number of warts someone had on their foot as a child or some other random fact. And no, I don't think this sort of "political shitposting" should be included on anyone's article. These warrants are meaningless and absolutely not notable/important as they will never be actioned on by Interpol or any country other than the two that issued them - because they're political and under false pretenses to begin with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, per precedent. We always mention it in articles on citizens of other countries who are subjects of US arrest warrants. Iraq and Iran are (reasonably large) sovereign countries just like the US. As noted, also widely reported in RS. --Tataral (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No – How many people have had fatwas issued against them? — JFG talk 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Apples and oranges. A court issues arrest warrant isn't a fatwa. We shouldn't be comparing it to a fatwa when it isn't a fatwa. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes -- notable, precedent, etc. I understand Berchanhimez's argument here, but the comparison to foot warts seems...unfitting. There's an argument this might not be the thing on the article that exists the most out of someone's head, but it's regardless still a non-trivial international event. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - if a previously notable person takes a notable action, and a foreign country puts out an arrest warrant for this person, it certainly should be mentioned. 46.117.5.72 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No Look at the dates of all all these news articles. They're all from the day the stories were first reported. I've tried finding more than were included here, and it's basically impossible. That's a big indication that this is just a minor event with no real importance: Iran's arrest warrants were newsworthy on the 30th of June, Iraq's warrant was newsworthy on the 7th of January, and both were forgotten by the next week. And it's easy to see why: these arrest warrants will not in any way affect Trump's life going forward. It's an interesting factoid, but just not important enough to include in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No per Red Rock Canyon. These are totally unenforceable warrants with no lasting notability, a complete political/media soundbite, and there’s no reason to mention them here. Total bloat. “Media covered something” is not sufficient to demonstrate notability of an event in this article, because anything Trump does gets covered by reliable media. If he spills an ice cream, that’ll be reported. Actually, unironically, it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No per Red Rock Canyon and ProcrastinatingReader. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No per Red Rock Canyon, ultimately I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The warrants are sufficiently covered in Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the Soleimani killing subsection in Foreign Policy of the Donald Trump administration. All of the above sources seem to be based on a few press agency reports (Reuters, AP, AFP), they all mention that Interpol does not accept requests of "political, military, religious or racial character," and no further mention after that. NY Times quotes an expert on saying that it's a largely symbolic step and part of Iran's "narrative of U.S. injustice." Undue for the top Trump biography. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Space4Time3Continuum2x states my view. Neutralitytalk 15:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No per all above. These "arrest warrants" are largely of interest to the countries that launched them. They have, and will have, zero impact on the biography of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No These reflect only the internal politics of the two nations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

No discussion is needed for the infobox changes on the 20th:
 * January 20, 2021
 * Joe Biden


 * Current first paragraph


 * Proposed first paragraph


 * Support as proposer. I am deliberately NOT looking to Barack Obama for guidance (much), per TINO (Trump Is Not Obama). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) (Now supporting the proposal near the bottom of subsection .) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot support the proposed wording. Trump is not like previous presidents who were only/mainly known for being presidents, and who spent the remainder of their days as "retired presidents" (like Bush or Obama). There is no evidence that Trump plans to retire from a public role, and he is known for more than his four years as president. As we have discussed before, he is widely and increasingly seen as a conspiracy theorist (just look at his Twitter account which is almost exclusively devoted to peddling conspiracy theories from far-right Breitbart). A new first sentence would likely need to reflect that he is still active as a political figure and the world's most prominent conspiracy theorist; he is even speculated to possibly establish a far-right TV channel. A more realistic wording would probably read more like Trump is an American far-right politician and conspiracy theorist who served as president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, followed by a sentence about his possible current activities (e.g. if he runs a far-right, Breitbart-like TV channel). --Tataral (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Granted my proposal doesn't say anything about what he is "now" (after the 20th), and it probably should until he no longer is anything in the earthly realm. Open to suggestions there. But good luck getting a consensus for politically loaded labels in the first paragraph. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That Trump is a conspiracy theorist and that he is far-right is not loaded, but reflects the consensus of reliable sources. Especially if Trump becomes a major "media mogul" who runs a Breitbart-like TV channel or other media company, that peddles the kind of material that Breitbart peddles (which isn't much of a stretch considering how he constantly retweets material mostly from Breitbart and similar sources), we cannot leave out what he actually does and how the world perceives him just because he was president for four years in the past. --Tataral (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate you about consensus of reliable sources, since it's irrelevant here. There are plenty of consensuses of reliable sources that are not reflected in the first paragraph because they don't belong in the first paragraph. Even the first paragraph of Adolf Hitler refrains from such characterizations, and a reader who knew nothing about Hitler would have to read further to discover what a stain on humanity he was. That's called "being encyclopedic". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump is not Hitler either. Hitler was only a politician, and did not have a media career before or after politics, like Trump. If Trump now becomes some kind of Alex Jones with his own TV channel, except a thousand times more prominent as a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones, there is no reason not to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in the same way that we describe Alex Jones in the first sentence as "an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist." --Tataral (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking in pointlessly speculative "ifs", so I'll await comments from more reasonable editors. This is a discussion about what the first paragraph should say at noon on January 20, not if and when Trump does x, y, or z. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just WP:CRYSTAL, what he does or doesn't do after being president shouldn't matter, on inauguration day, which is what the proposal is seemingly referring to, he'll mainly be regarded as an ex-president/ex-businessman. Even in that circumstance, him being a former U.S. president is more notable than him being a conspiracy theorist, so the placement in your proposed text is off the mark. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Just do it when Biden actually becomes president, I doubt it's going to much of a struggle. Trump is still the president, using past tense "served" is simply false. Trump could start a war between now and then, did Biden declare it cause Trump is seemingly not the president anymore? Just have some patience, it'll happen eventually. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading comprehension on my part needs improvement, yes this is fine for inauguration day but obviously shouldn't see implementation before that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank god you beat my blowtorch response by a few seconds; it wasn't pretty. I have modified the initial comment to hopefully improve clarity on this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, don't use Wikipedia when you just wake up folks. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- as that's roughly how we do it for the other former US presidents & former US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Sums up his life until noon, January 20, 2021, very nicely. As for his future endeavors, he may be too busy with lawsuits he did not initiate to do much else (WP:SPECULATION). And he'll also be househunting; his Mar-a-Lago neighbors are suing for him to stick to the agreement that won't allow him to live there for more than 21 days per year and not more than 7 days at a stretch. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own.  - sooo many highlights to choose from.
 * The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job".
 * With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not put that in a new subsection? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed new second sentence? That would be OK with me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just the second sentence but the entire proposed first paragraph, since it has to be evaluated as a unit. I'll leave the move to you since it's your proposal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a dense moment—you mean adding the proposal as a subsection like "Wikilinks" below? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A compromise, for the linkage issue? GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I guess you could call it that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Not sure what else we'd say at that point. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He may well do "important", "lead-worthy" things next, but I would argue those would not rise to the level of his presidency and should be summarized later in the lead (if at all, whatever those things may be, etc.). The suggested revised sentence will be fine to start off the lead (the lead of the lead). (Unless there is a coup after noon on the 20th, in which case all bets are off...) Bdushaw (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This aged like milk. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 02:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – – Please have a look at the two amendments below and comment there if you have an opinion. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented on both. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the two suggested revisions: (1) wikilink to Presidency of Donald Trump, per the easier wikilink path to President of the United States than the other way, and (2) "was" rather than "served" per puffery, better NPOV, and shorter. Bdushaw (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the original proposal as clear and concise. Trump is mostly known for being president, so that should go first. The rest of his career is adequately summarized by the "Before entering politics" line which has enjoyed a very longstanding consensus. — JFG talk 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh - it's OK but "was" is better than "served as", and "real estate developer" would be better than "businessman" (more accurate and descriptive). Weak support I guess. Levivich harass/hound 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Use "was" not "served as". One of those MOS:EDITORIAL matters. Besides that, yes, the change is fine, though this is not something that needs an RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Per MOS:SPECIFICLINK, the first sentence ought to link to Presidency of Donald Trump, not President of the United States, as the former is more specific and much more likely to be useful to readers. To avoid a MOS:EGG issue, we could make the link over 45th president of the United States rather than just president of the United States. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consenus already changed that back in July . This way it meets MOS:LINKCLARITY. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We didn't have the option of including "45th" in the link in July, which remedies the egg/clarity issue. The July discussion also had limited participation and suffered from a number of procedural problems (see my comment below it), so it's perfectly ready for revisiting. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Just don't. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I support that, I guess, per much more likely to be useful. Also notable is that a reader can easily navigate Donald Trump -> Presidency of Donald Trump -> President of the United States, but not Donald Trump -> President of the United States -> Presidency of Donald Trump (particularly after January 20). Procedurally, I have no problem with opening up the entire paragraph for CCC discussion, which is one of the reasons to start this a month in advance. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Switched to Oppose below, after further discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as we link to President of the United States in the intros of the other US president bio articles. STOP with trying to make this 'one' article different from the others, in that manner. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, but please STOP with insisting that cross-article consistency is the only thing that matters and overrides all other considerations, absent any policy, guideline, or other community consensus that it should have any weight whatsoever. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't you leave well enough alone. If this were a hard-cover encyclopedia? an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals like Sdkb's. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't you leave well enough alone. Well, we disagree that it's "well enough". Obviously. So you are resting on a premise that is itself your opinion. That's not how reasoning should work. an editor-in-chief would reject such proposals. By design, Wikipedia does not have an editor-in-chief. We go by consensus instead. If you want to play editor-in-chief, go start your own encyclopedia with my best wishes for success. Would you be content, if we had a mixture of showing & not showing successors-to-be in these bio article's infoboxes, too? Probably not, but I'd say that consistency is more important than this minor linking difference, which would be noticed by few readers and cared about by virtually none (which is not to say it wouldn't be an improvement). That's why I pursued a community consensus on successor. Without a community consensus, I certainly wouldn't be seen insisting on cross-article consistency in that usage, and implying that everybody who disagrees with me was an incompetent idiot, as you incessantly and tiresomely do. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to disagree on the intro of this article & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We link to Presidency of Donald Trump in the Presidency section. We can also link it in the intro, perhaps linking it to 45th (although having two links next to each other can be confusing for readers) or in what is currently the third paragraph, beginning "During his presidency..." ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Didn't we already have this discussion in April? The decision there was to link to "Presidency of Donald Trump." Or was there a later discussion that changed that? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Never mind - shoulda read to the end of #17. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He held the office of president of the United States, not the office of presidency of Donald Trump. Thus another reason for me to 'oppose' linking to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose linking president of the United States to Presidency of Donald Trump as MOS:EGG. 45th president of the United States IMO is also a tad MOS:EGGy, looks more like a link to List of presidents of the United States. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a soft-boiled egg. How is it less eggy (more predictable) to target an article about 45 people from text about one? Unquestionably the status quo linking is the least eggy, but then is MOS:EGG the most important thing? I've come close to switching my !vote since I wrote it. This is an unusually sticky question and I'd say we're faced with several equally bad alternatives. Might as well roll a die (and I happen to have one handy). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked the more general question before; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. The general view there was that we still ought to use more specific links even when it creates very minor eggs. In these situations, I go to first principles of what serves readers best. Is it worse to risk that some readers at Donald Trump looking for information on the U.S. presidency (somewhat rare) have to click an extra time to get there from the presidency page, or that readers at Donald Trump looking for detailed information on Trump's presidency (extremely common) don't realize we have a subpage for his presidency and miss out on the level of detail they are seeking? There is no question for me that we should prioritize solving the latter issue. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All you have to do there, is mention Presidency of Donald Trump at the top of the article, next to a "For his Administration" bit. Place it right under the "For other uses" bit. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's worth serious consideration. I would consider "readers aren't likely to look at those hatnotes" a very weak argument against it; we should assume hatnotes will be used or get rid of them site-wide as unneeded clutter. It also dovetails nicely with this overall discussion, since Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus #17 already addresses the top hatnotes. The first sentence would then be free to have a nice, completely EGG-compliant link to President of the United States, and everybody would be happy. ? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm firmly opposed (as I have been elsewhere) to the use of hatnotes for anything besides the disambiguatory purpose for which they were intended. Their function is not to be a catchall repository of other important related pages. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RELATED supports you, and I concede the point. But I think I'll defect to Oppose, reverting to the position I took the last time this linking question came up. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I really don't think Presidency of Donald Trump is an implausible target for the wikitext, but if we wanted to make it ironclad clear, we could link over served as/was the 45th president of the United States. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's just not link president of the United States to presidency of Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, same argument as what I said in July. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if the perceived egg is what bothers you, what would you think of my 23:23 suggestion to Space4Time3Continuum2x directly above? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be arguably better, but wouldn't tip the scales for me. That's still significantly more eggy than a link where the target article's title exactly matches the linktext (except for the capitalization of the first letter) – i.e., an unpiped link. Good EGG compliance should require predictability in my opinion, and I somewhat strongly oppose this sentence at MOS:EGG, which undermines that principle: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." I very rarely invoke IAR to disregard part of a guideline in all cases, but I make an exception in this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to invoke IAR to argue that we should make MOS:EGG way stricter than it actually is and aim to avoid all piped links, I can't argue against that. There's no plausible target for served as/was the 45th president of the United States other than Presidency of Donald Trump, so in my view it's about as EGG-compliant as you can get. And I think you made a great point above when you questioned is MOS:EGG the most important thing?—I think it's clearly a concern, but it's not more important than giving readers links to the pages they are most likely to want to go to. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that we should give readers links to the pages they are most likely to want to go to. Where we differ is on the importance of doing that in the first sentence of the article. I mean, there is something seriously wrong if a reader who wants to go to information about Trump's presidency can't be asked to scan the TOC for "presidency" – BAM, there it is, in the fifth first-level TOC entry, not hard at all to see – click there, and then click the "Main article" hatnote. That's one additional click in an environment designed around the concept of clicking, hardly a significant difference in usability. We aren't dealing with three-year-olds here – particularly among readers who care one whit about learning about Trump's presidency – and it does not serve a reader in the long run to protect them from learning how Wikipedia is structured. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, how does it make sense to send a reader directly to the Presidency article without first asking them if our Presidency section is enough detail for them? We might as well give them a list of links to sub-articles and skip a large part of this article's content, saving an enormous amount of editor time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and aim to avoid all piped links – (For the record, I didn't mean to go that far. His presidency is as predictable a link as Presidency of Donald Trump, but served as/was the 45th president of the United States is not. This is largely moot given the preceding points, but maybe worth clearing up anyway.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Served as" vs. "was"
MOS:PUFFERY uses "public servants" as an example of loaded language, and served as is a little better but still not preferable when we could just use the perfectly neutral Donald Trump was the 45th... instead. Let's please not adopt the loaded terminology that politicians use to try to escape the connotations of their profession. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "was" is much better. Neutralitytalk 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, and I almost proposed "was" instead. Then I thought about the "we should do x because other U.S. presidents' BLPs do x" faction (which includes a few of our most experienced editors), and decided to avoid that. But Wikipedia would do well to deprecate the idea that things are Good merely because they are widespread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


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


 * "Served as" is used for every president going backwards from Obama until you get to Nixon. For Nixon we say he "was" the 37th president.  "Served as" is then used again for every president until you get to Truman, who we say "was" the 33rd president.  FDR again "served as" president, as did Hoover, and Coolidge, but Harding "was" the 29th president.  For Wilson we're back to "Served as", but Taft goes back to "was". Theodore Roosevelt returns to "served as" while McKinley "was".  "Was" is used for the next couple, but then Chester Arthur "served as".  Garfield "was" and Hayes "was", but Grant "served as" while Johnson "was". Lincoln and Bucannan "served as" and Franklin Pierce "was". From Pierce backwards we use "was" until Martin Van Buren, who "served as" the 8th president. We then use "served as" language for all the remaining presidents.
 * In general, it seems like the trend is to use "served as" for the early presidents and the most recent presidents, and a mix of "was" and "served as" for those in the middle. Interestingly, although this isn't consistent (Hoover "served as") and which presidents were "good" or "bad" at their jobs is up for some debate, it seems for presidents with good reputations we are more likely to use "served as" whereas those who are controversial or widely viewed as "bad" we are more likely to use "was".
 * Frankly, I think "was" is more neutral, and it would be a good idea to use "was" throughout all U.S. president articles, but I'm not about to run around and try to force that kind of standardization, and I recommend against trying it. With things as they are, I'm afraid it would be seen as biased to use "was" for Trump when the modern presidents all use "served as" except Nixon, who many people think was not a good president. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Was is the NPOV statement. All sources agree on that. It's not yet clear whether, what or whom he "served".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's called self-service, I believe. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Salad bar.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever seems to have objected to "is" or suggested changing it to "serves." Was is the logical continuation and NPOV, also shorter than "served as." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We've variations throughout the US presidents bios, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Served" does not mean he served well. There is such thing as a bad servant. In regard to the comment that Trump was self-serving, I have never seen a credible suggestion that this is true. He was a successful businessman. Did the presidency help him? Arguably it made him worse off.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a successful businessman What? Source for that? That's not the narrative told in this article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Was is simpler, with less connotations, and therefore better. Levivich harass/hound 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Use was to describe his presidency. The "served as" term is euphemistic puffery. Sometimes politicians are serving in a political office and sometimes they are being served. It is not really neutral to attempt to say which one of those was happening. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "served as" is the conventional term for former government officials, judges, business people, etc. It's extremely common on Wikipedia. Here's a somewhat random (and very much non-exhaustive) list of examples: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, John Kerry, Mike Pompeo, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter all "served as" US president or secretary of state; François Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Hollande all "served as" president of France; Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov all "served as" government officials in the Soviet Union; Thomas J. Watson, Ginni Rometty, Samuel J. Palmisano all "served as" IBM CEO or chair person. Maybe "was" would be more neutral than "served as", but since this issue probably affects tens of thousands of articles, it should be discussed in a central place (I guess some WP:Manual of Style page?), not on an individual politician's talk page. As long as "served as" is the rule, it would violate WP:NPOV to use "was" here. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chrisahn, there is no logic in using on one hand "was" for one former government official, and on the other hand "served as" for practically all other former officials . Felix558 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Devil's advocate alternative

 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was a businessman and television personality, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This makes it sound like he's deceased. Placing his business/media careers first also makes no sense, since his presidential career is unquestionably more impactful on the world. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I expressed early on, it would make sense (and seem natural) to say he "is" something as long as he still breathes. In the BLP for an actor that hasn't been heard from in 20 years, we say either "is an actor" or "is a former actor", not "was an actor". We switch to past tense only when they do. Trump will continue to be "heard from" probably as long as he can speak, as it's his nature to be heard from. I'm just not sure what to say Trump "is" after January 20, and we are obviously not going with loaded labels in the first paragraph regardless of any RS support for them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say "is" a businessman. He still will be a businessman after January 20.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but he won't still be a "television personality" by the usual definition, at least not on January 20. We have to formulate something that makes sense on that day, without thinking about what might come later.Perhaps: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman and former television personality, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.Or, maybe the "former television personality" bit could be dropped now that it's over five years old. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.In either case, I think the comma preceding "who" is grammatically incorrect, even if it provides what might be considered a helpful pause in the sentence.This would reduce the paragraph to a single sentence, which is not a sin of writing but should be noted anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK. No comma. No mention that he is/was a TV personality. It will presumably be true that he is a businessman on January 20. This will probably cover subsequent events, and will probably provide a succinct account of who he is. I don't think that summing up his life by saying he was American President for four years makes much sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, then I hereby support this instead of my initial proposal: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Awaiting overwhelming support for that, leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "president of the United States" part, being linked to? GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This section does not address the linking. As I said just above, ...leaving the "Wikilinks" amendment as yet unresolved. If that was unclear, it was referring to the section above. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok let's give it the pretty blue background like the rest. Still omitting the linking since that's a separate and independent question being handled at.
 * Support per discussion in this subsection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - as this is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Sometimes the Devil has good tunes. I think this sums up who Trump is. He has been a businessman all his adult life and made a late foray into politics, serving as President for the past four years. This avoids implying he ceased to be a businessman and that the presidency was the be-all and end-all of his life.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, as a nice way to emphasize that the presidency is, oddly, not the most defining thing about him. Although I might prefer a slightly simpler Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman. He was the president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. I find the common phraseology X is a Y who is/was Z to be unnecessarily convoluted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even a former politician like Schwarzenegger?, Schwarzenegger has not returned to politics after his second term as governor ended. Trump's hints at running again may just have the purpose to induce supporters to donate to his PAC but what is the source for him leaving politics on January 20? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if he runs again, that won't make him a politician per the dictionary entry (in the collapsed section below). If he runs and gets elected, he will then pass one narrow dictionary sense of "politician" (that merely being in office makes one a politician) while clearly still failing the other two (ignoring the "disparaging" one). At the same time, it would be CRYSTAL to call him a "former politician" in the first sentence, precisely because he's making noises about running again. He's nothing if not a moving target, and he deliberately makes it difficult to know what's real. Considering that the word at best stretches the definition (and most people's concept) in Trump's unusual case, I think it's best just left out as unnecessary; it's sufficient to say he was president. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Bump’s semi-scientific study aka asking random people on the Web (WaPo link), "politician" is in the eye of the beholder. Webster isn’t infallible (see CNN). How is definition 2b supposed to work? You determine the politician’s motives and then call them a politician disparagingly or not? "Office politician" isn’t a compliment but "politician" seems neutral to me. Trump keeps insisting that he’s not a politician (WaPo, BBC, WaExaminer). That usually means that the opposite is true. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding all other arguments, the word is clearly problematic when applied to Trump, and we should omit problematic words from the first paragraph of the article. It's unnecessary as I said above, and it's potentially misleading. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

-- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose He stepped out of the Trump Org. Is he a businessman?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. He "stepped out" while unofficially keeping his fingers in it through his family members, as I suspect you've probably said yourself at some point in the past. He is a businessman in life-long experience and instinct, in contrast to "politician". We pretty much have to say he's something besides a former president, and I don't know what could be less problematic than "businessman". A "man"? Yeah, that's verifiable since RS always uses the masculine personal pronouns when referring to him. But I wouldn't recommend it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * His foray into politics was predicated on the idea that he was a highly successful businessman who understood the "art of the deal". He continued to discuss political issues by referring to real estate opportunities and ratings. The Trump empire endures. Even the "Winter White House" was a Trump business.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Businessman", especially when unaccompanied by "politician" or "television personality", fails to communicate how much Trump's career is intertwined with his personality, an essential fact about him. Also, it makes no sense to prioritize (by placing first) "businessman" over "president of the United States"; the latter is clearly more important. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree much more with that last sentence. It makes perfect sense to me to say what he "is" in general terms before anything he has done. Businessman is a defining characteristic; former president is not. Besides, where is it written that the most important should be first rather than last? Isn't the last more likely to be retained than the first, having been read more recently? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We use "businessman", "politician" and or "lawyer" before "president of the United States", in several intros of the US presidents. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - In hopes of one of these proposals gaining consensus, this one is satisfactory. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He won one election, that does not make him a politician.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - Not enough information. He served as the president of the United States, and is not even described as a politician? It also is inconsistent with other former presidents' pages. A better, more descriptive, and more consistent alternative would be:
 * Oppose – Like it or not, Trump will be mostly remembered for his presidency rather than his business career. — JFG talk 15:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a crystal ball, JFG? They are not all accounted for. We can only document what Trump is known for now. Do you think that Arnold Schwarzneggar will be principally known as a politician in the future? Perhaps, but perhaps not. What about Peter Garrett? Bernard Shaw? Malcolm Muggeridge? Horace Walpole? Duff Cooper? Gyles Brandreth? Valentina Tereshkova? John Buchan? Bobby Sands? Gerry Adams? Douglas Hyde? W. B. Yeats? Michael Portillo? Geoffrey Chaucer? Soong Ching-ling? Annie Besant? Mahatma Gandhi? Peter Lalor? Vanessa Redgrave? Fred Thompson? Sonny Bono? Thomas More? John Newton? William Cowper? Jessica Mitford? A. P. Herbert? C. L. R. James?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021" is better, "Was" Makes it seem read like he's dead, also Trump remains a Television Personality in a way, this wording makes it (more) clear that the subject is still alive. Hazelforest (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - many people are "a businessman", it doesn't tell the reader anything meaningful about him. President/former president should come first. Levivich harass/hound 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal for first sentence
After further thought—or any thought, really—I'm submitting a proposal of my own. - sooo many highlights to choose from.
 * The second sentence stating that "Before entering politics, he was …" has rubbed me the wrong way for a while. He didn’t divest himself of his businesses and actively promoted them when he was president, and IMO someone doesn’t stop being a television personality just because he doesn’t have his own show or pageant at the moment. He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. He’s formed a personal Political Action Committee (PAC), a clear indication that he has no intention of allowing himself to be put out to pasture quietly. Also, he’s been hinting at running in 2024. I could even live with who served as in the transitive definition of "to perform the duties of (an office or post)" but I prefer "was" because people not familiar with US politics or conventions of speech might think "service" like Mother Theresa and not just another word for "job".
 * With the new second sentence we'd have both a link to "President of the United States" and "Presidency of Donald Trump." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Acceptable - as this satisfies my concerns about 'consistency' across these US president bios articles & the misdirection of wiki-linking the 'presidency' to an individuals administration. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Opposed - typically the opening line of an article such as this gives only the basics of the man and not his tenure, I'm looking at past U.S. presidents when I say this such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as such, the attempt at a rundown of his presidency is a no go for this proposal and is what the succeeding paragraphs in the rest of the lead are for. Also the use of a hyphen is messy, simply say . MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said when I misunderstood what Mandruss had written, I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose- this is too soft. new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time. His presidency was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in terms of personal behavior and turmoil at the WH for the second sentence and a bit more in-depth coverage for the—uh—governing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Your second sentence is the kind of thing we have in paragraphs 3 and 4 and doesn't belong in paragraph 1 in my opinion. As I've previously said with some support from others, the first paragraph should answer the very basic question, "Who is Donald Trump?" for readers who have never heard of him, and nothing more. And I certainly don't care to get into debates about what few things "marked" his presidency. sooo many highlights to choose from. – Exactly!I'd be OK with moving the second sentence into a new paragraph. I'd object to a single-sentence second paragraph (first paragraph is a different animal) and, again, we save broad evaluations of his presidency for paragraphs 3 and 4.He became a politician the moment he entered the presidential race. Disagree with that narrow definition. In my view a politician devotes at least a large part of his adult life to serving in public office. Trump went from businessman and reality show host to president and back, effectively only dabbling in politics after 69 years of life. Even Schwarzenegger is borderline, and he served twice as long – and we're currently calling him a "former politician".Merriam and Webster largely agree with me here:
 * 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government.
 * Trump had no such experience when he announced for president, and he didn't gain much in four years, as evidenced by his failure to be re-elected.
 * especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
 * Not after January 20.
 * 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
 * Clearly and objectively not.
 * b : often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
 * Ok, but let's not be disparaging in the first paragraph.
 * I assume you dropped his middle name by mistake since that would violate MOS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Alternative proposal for first paragraph
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - as this too is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments elsewhere, including this and this. And the repetition of "businessman" and "television personality" is just poor writing, plain and simple. "John is an electrician and piano teacher. Four years ago, he was an electrician." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Prior to his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality.? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As above, his presidency is clearly the most important, and should come first. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In many of the other US president bio intros, we mention "lawyer" and or "businessman", before "president of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with caveat - I support this proposal if you cut the opening and just have . Since you have him being a businessman and television personality at the end of the sentence it seems redundant to repeat that. I understand some believe he'll return to business or become a media persona once more, but unless that's confirmed it's simply WP:CRYSTAL and he largely remains known as an ex-president. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Support - Similar to Reagan's. Reagan kind of had the same career (media to politics), and this sounds much clearer. I think that this should be its own option. Something like this:


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

Another alternative proposal
Or: <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do not need to say it twice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already have too many alternative proposals. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on the basis that we've already too many alternate proposals. In the words of George Carlin - "Too many choices, people. It's not healthy". GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as I'm disgruntled that yet another proposal has been added, I won't let my process objections color my opinion of the proposal itself. I'm hesitant about it, though, since calling him a politician and a member of the Republican Party together give the strong impression (even if it's not explicitly stated) that he's a conventional career politician who holds traditional Republican views, which is not the case. Also (and this is getting back to process again), those changes aren't really related to the transition. It'd be a lot easier to discuss them on their own merits, rather than throwing them onto the pile here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I feel like I am going against what everyone else thinks, but I support this. It is consistent with other previous presidents' articles, such as Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and the flow is good. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not primarily defined as a politician. Party affiliation has varied as well. — JFG talk 15:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Fine. He's most notable for being a Republican, and has had great influence and reshaped it during his tenure as president so it is very lead sentence worthy. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, most sources differentiate him and his actions from what was generally understood to be Republican. Yes, it has been noted that the ex ante Republicans have largely migrated to Trump-followers, but that is not quite the same as calling him a noteworthy Republican.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the Republican Party now basically become Trump-centered? If you're anti Trump, now you're labeled as a RINO. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 20:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose- He wasn't even a Republican until he pursued the nomination. At any rate, his Republican affiliation is incidental to his personal bio, except to the extent we describe his unexpected and brilliant takeover of the party and its elected federal officials. This part does belong in the article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reagan was a Democrat until 1962, and yet he is still remembered as a bastion of Republican values. Just because Trump used to not be a Republican doesn't mean that he shouldn't be described as such. During his entire political career (just like Reagan), he has identified as a Republican. Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No similarity, for many reasons.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * like it or not, Trump will always be remembered as a Republican, and not a member of one of his previous political parties. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to rebut something that nobody has said. My comment stands.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


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

new proposal (best proposal yet)
"new suggestion" Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a businessman, television personality, high-stakes grifter, politician, and con-artist who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017-2021. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time, by relevant experts. His presidency, informally known as the "Dark Ages" by American historians, was marked by rampant corruption and nepotism, attacks on democracy, tax cuts for the wealthy while gutting social services for ordinary Americans, government sanctioned torture of immigrants, the construction of concentration camps on US soil, impeachment, fealty to foreign leaders and dictators, the bungled handling of a global pandemic, an economic depression, high turnover of cabinet members and senior White House personnel; a flood of insults of foreign leaders, countries, and perceived opponents; …}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure what you're trying to prove, but it's not helping. Please, take your personal politics off Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Light at end of tunnel?
The way things are going, do you see any consensus possible before January 20? I'm not seeing it. Perfect is the enemy of good, and we are all vigorously pursuing perfection with little willingness to compromise for the sake of consensus. What to do? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll never accept linking president of the United States to presidency of Donald Trump. As for the rest? too many proposals will decrease the chances of a consensus for any intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing linking over president of the United States. If you are going to bludgeon us with your opposition, at least do it to the actual change proposed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you dropped that linkage proposal? GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought your original proposal, with the modest changes to the wikilink, was fine - a minimal change to the status quo to update the situation to post 20 January. I think it is important to retain "television personality", since that is at the core to who Trump is and now he came to be president. That proposal has notable support, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the first proposal was largely fine, and to the extent it needs tweaks, those should be discussed in subsections describing the tweak, not "alternative proposal #X" subsections that try to offer a wholesale option. We'd be in a better place if those subsections had not been opened. As regards status quo, I think the first proposal, but with "was" rather than "served" per Space4Time3Continuum2x's point, is closest to the status quo, and should be what we default to if discussion deadlocks. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (That’s not the end of the tunnel, just the glow from Trump’s phone as he’s blocking the view.) I would suggest one more tweak: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Before his presidency, he was a businessman and television personality. That way we also have a link to Presidency of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Assuming this is the first proposal we're talking about? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest one more tweak: - LOL. I rest my case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection to that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We'd be in a better place if those subsections had not been opened. I understand your point. When we have tried your method in the past, we often had editors creating dependent linkages between individual tweaks, as "Support only if Tweak X is made and Tweak Y is not made". If you want to drive yourself completely mad, try sorting out such tangles to divine a consensus. So we were faced with prohibiting such linkages (good luck) or giving up the separate-tweaks methodology. As it turned out, tweaks rarely exist in isolation, and both methods are about equally ineffective. But I'm not opposed to trying it again, and you can show us how it's done. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just copy-paste the lede from Obama & Bush, and tweak it to fit Trump. That's the least controversial and simple way to do it, in my opinion. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 20:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we be logical about this? I'd like to see that. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I recall both Bush and Obama had been political figures before being president, as such they are not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump previously ran for office and lost. A failed politician is still a politician. And now he is a politician, so it is absolutely analogous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

American as a descriptive
Interesting 'question' brought up at Kamala Harris. Do we need to say American politician or American anything? when it's the US president or US vice president? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need to say "American" before their job description. I was looking for a section to point this out, so thank you. MOS virtually requires the nationality of the subject to be in the first sentence of a biography, per MOS:OPENPARABIO and even more specifically at MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Every recent president's article follows that MOS format, along the lines of "...is an American politician and attorney who was the...". See Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. This article reached a local consensus not to start the lead that way, but now that we are moving toward a "past president" article we should do it the standard way. There are multiple suggested wordings above, and several of them would be acceptable to me - provided they start with the format "Donald Trump is an American (whatever profession is decided on - politician, businessman, former television personality - personally I would just go with American businessman) who was the ..." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding apparent wiki-tradition, I feel that "American" is obvious when talking about a U.S. president. — JFG talk 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can't be president if you aren't a natural-born American. Besides the requirements guidelines from MOS, is it really necessary to state the obvious? Mgasparin (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "requirement from MOS". MOS is a set of guidelines which, by definition, allow exceptions. This seems like a reasonable use of that flexibility to me. Regarding other U.S. presidents' BLPs, my response is the usual for elements lacking a community consensus covering all U.S. presidents: This article is not governed by what editors have chosen to do at those articles, and such reasoning can prevent improvements to the encyclopedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't really answer my question. Do we need to state that he is an American?  Mgasparin (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we do not. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course we should, but only when introducing the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would have to remove the linkage from "45th", as that's a practice no longer implemented on the former US presidents & former US vice presidents bio intros. However, I wouldn't object to the practice being re-stored to all of them. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you find the discussion/edit that led to the removal? I don't want the link over 45th to be a sticking point. Apart from that, this is the option closest to the status quo and is what we should default to in the absence of an affirmative consensus for a change. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was'bout 2 or 3 years ago. Some fellow went through all the US prez & vice prez bios & removed the links in the infoboxes. Since then 'someone' removed the links from the intros themselves. I can't remember 'who' did it & where the discussion was had to allow him to do it. I would gladly restore those links, if nobody will object. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's part of our consensus #17 and there is no community consensus to override it, so you're mistaken. As we've established before, there is no general policy, guideline, or other community consensus governing cross-article consistencies in such details, so, absent a community consensus for the specific detail, this article is not bound in the slightest by what editors at other articles have done (see successor for a recent example of this principle in action). You really, really – did I mention really? – need to understand this and cease making such arguments.If that is not enough, this is clearly not "a bare minimum change" for the short term, a condition that was clearly stipulated above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If noboby objects, I'll happily restore those links. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the instruction at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article." It is not the place to discuss what should or should not happen at other articles, and any decisions reached here would have zero weight there. This is Wikipedia Editing 101. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the link-in-question is kept in the intro after January 20? I'll make linkages throughout the others. Somewhat of a long thankless task, but that's what gnome editors are for. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like to see the descriptors fascist, despotic, or nazi-adjacent added, considering Mr. Trump’s recent ham-fisted attempts to end American democracy. Anyone else in favor? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the fact that that's a total non-starter, please explain how that is something that satisfies "bare minimum of change" for the short term. The entire point of this subsection is that it is NOT merely a continuation of the discussion that has been ongoing since 19 December. If you have trouble with this concept, please re-read the above and let me know what's unclear. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - as it's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Simple, uncontroversial, and short. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not move this to Talk:Donald trump and place an RfC tag for greater visibility? <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 18:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've listed it at Highlighted open discussions. RfC would be premature per WP:RFCBEFORE, and I think it's unlikely to prove necessary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - addresses concerns raised with the alternatives above. Concise and accurate, plus it emphasises presidency first. Jr8825  •  Talk  11:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. The wording is the best of all the choices so far. I think "real estate developer" should be used instead of "businessman" (more precise/descriptive than the meaningless label "businessman"), and the order should be switched, so it's stated as president->TV personality->real estate developer, in that order (the proper order of significance IMO). I disagree with the WP:SEAOFBLUE for "45th" and "president of the United States", it should just use the latter link. I wouldn't say "entering politics", as it's imprecise. He stood for and won one election (a big one, of course), it's not like he's had some long career in politics. If he holds other offices in the future, that might become an apt way of describing it, but not after one term in one office. Also, grammatically-speaking, the way it's written (for all these proposals), it suggests there were 45 presidents between 2017 and 2021. So my preference would be Levivich harass/hound 18:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is far better than the suggested one, but remember, this is temporary. This is like a backup in case nothing else gets selected. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 22:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that we may not have a consensus for anything by noon EST on January 20 unless we limit this particular consensus to bare minimum change. If you don't believe that, you haven't been around for the discussions that have occurred since December 19. Then we would have a problem, as change could no longer wait for consensus (we can't continue to say Trump is the current president after noon on the 20th), Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus #17 would have to be simply ignored, and we would have instability in the most visible part of the article, possibly lasting for a week or more. The orderly process provided by the consensus list would be lost and edit wars could break out, possibly requiring the article to be full-protected. In my opinion none of the changes you propose have to be in the temporary January 20 version. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich's suggestions are an improvement. I think we should at least adopt the three non-controversial, technical tweaks (unlinked "45th", change to "before being elected" and "serving from" for grammatical clarity). The other two suggestions ("real estate developer", order change) are more than the minimal change we're trying to settle on here and should be put aside for now (and discussed separately) so that the updated fallback is closest to the current revision. The sentence would look like:  Jr8825  •  Talk  06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Somehow I'm failing to make my point clear. And I'm getting tired. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I did get your point but my optimistic tone confused things – unless I'm completely overlooking something? I've edited my previous comment to make it more clear I think the 2 complex changes need later discussion. My point is that while the 3 tweaks I highlighted don't need to be in the temporary January 20 version, I don't see why they shouldn't be, as I consider them straightforward, non-controversial improvements. They're just wording adjustments, there's no substantive content change vis-à-vis your interim proposal. Jr8825  •  Talk  08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Without existing consensuses, you can't assume anything will be uncontroversial. I've seen it time and time again, where an editor can't fathom why a different editor is objecting to their uncontroversial proposal. If we allowed in your uncontroversial tweaks, wouldn't we then have to allow in uncontroversial tweaks from other editors? What if you or someone else don't like their uncontroversial tweaks? And then we're back in the bind that got us to this point. In this unusual situation, we haven't the time to resolve all that, and I strongly feel we need to just stick to bare minimum change without uncontroversial tweaks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I have no issue setting these adjustments aside for the sake of finding something "marginally acceptable" and my previous support !vote still stands. However, I'd like to draw attention to the specific change before entering politics>before being elected. I think this is an significant improvement as it's contradictory to say Trump entered politics in 2016 when this article has a section entitled "Political activities up to 2015"! For me, "before entering politics" is only marginally acceptable; "before being elected" is imperfect, but less imperfect. Jr8825  •  Talk  09:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how something that has been in the first sentence unchanged and unchallenged for several years can suddenly be so important to "fix" in the temporary, short-term version. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current revision has quite the same issue. Right now, "before entering politics" is framed by "current president" so the inference for the reader is simply "Now he's president. Before he was a businessman". However, I'll readily admit that issues are always placed in much sharper relief when you're picking something apart word-by-word. Jr8825  •  Talk  10:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support The most achievable and necessary change is to change the word "is" to "was". We may never have consensus for anything else. All further proposals should remain minimal in nature, like one or two words each time, as we are clearly not able to do anything better than that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as marginally acceptable in the short term. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The initial "was" makes it sound like he's dead. The original proposal "served as" is factual and less ambiguous. (cue in jokes on "serving") — JFG talk 06:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Serving indeed. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but with the lead name amended to Donald John Trump Sr., as opposed to Donald John Trump Jr., per MOS:FULLNAME — amchow78 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a television personality and former businessman, who was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, "Was" Makes it seem read like he's dead, also Trump remains a Television Personality in a way, this wording makes it (more) clear that the subject is still alive. Hazelforest (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Hazelforest's proposal. Unless something truly bizarre happens, Trump will absolutely still be a television personality after tomorrow until probably his death. He has mostly, if not entirely, severed direct connections to his businesses. And it puts his presidency in the past-tense without making it seem like he died. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal as well. Although it should be changed to "served as" like the sentences on previous presidents' pages. I also like that it doesn't include the word "politician" because if it did, it would imply that Trump had a significant political career outside of his presidency, which he didn't. PBZE (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I do not support it because of "was", it sounds like he is dead. I think "who served as the 45th president of the United States" is a much better solution (articles about Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. are using "who served as" at the beggining). Felix558 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"American politician"
Should we really refer to Former President Donald Trump as an "American politician" in the first line if he's completely out of character with most politicians and doesn't have any political experience other than running as an outsider for the White House?

Personally, I felt the page was fine before the edit just to reflect his inexperience in this area, as the presidency is usually more of a terminal career rather than a supplemental one.

Golfpecks256 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think "American politician" should be replaced with "American businessman and television personality" as a more accurate description of his career and persona, since the presidency seems to be an outlier in his overall career. Golfpecks256 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's quite an outlier to be the president, it's not like he became the mayor of a town of four people. The only real parallel in modern history is Eisenhower, who had no prior political experience, but is still described as "American politician and soldier". Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I commented above that I don’t think “politician” defines him and his life well, since his political career has only been part of his life recently. However, he does fit our definition of politician, and that in major dictionaries, and the main source of his notability is now being a former president. So honestly, I think a reasonable argument can be made in both directions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would prefer "American businessman and television personality" as previously discuss. I don't know why we had such a long discussion about this topic and then ignored it at the last minute.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "American media personality and former real estate developer who was 45th president..." Levivich harass/hound 22:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to this suggestion. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think regardless of how to label him, the lead should say "who served as the 45th President of the United States". The majority of President articles are formatted this way. --2601:446:400:7F10:A9D2:6706:4FA1:B1AA (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned comment by 24.112.191.139
Where is the section on his booming economy pre COVID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.191.139 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a whole article about Trump's economic policy here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Caption
It seems like this is the only article about a president that doesn't include a caption in the infobox. Most presidents use "Official portrait, " as their caption, so Trump's would be "Official portrait, 2017". His infobox seems empty without it, and as far as I can tell, his is the only modern president to not include a caption. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. Go for it. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The caption was redundant when it was the official portrait of the sitting president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Space Force (USSF) section should be added to presidency?
Should there be an article added to presidency section about trump and the United States Space Force (USSF)? Mrmattu (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why, OK he authorized it, but so what?Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Being it’s part of the force’s history, I would of thought it would of been added in somewhere e.g. authorised when Trump was in office. Etc. Mrmattu (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in lead not supported by body
the only federal officeholder in the history of the United States to be impeached twice is not the same thing as the (apparently -- sorry, I don't have an NYT subscription) sourced statement in the body that he is the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The majority of federal officeholders in the United States to have been impeached were not presidents so the statement in the body doesn't imply the statement in the lead, and the lead is not allowed make different claims from the article body. Since it does seem that he is both the first U.S. president and the first U.S. federal officeholder to be impeached twice, I think a sourced statement to the latter effect should be incorporated into the body and the lead left unchanged, but what do others think? Since I don't have access to the source in the body to check whether it supports both claims, and since I don't advocate changing the lead, I can't make this change myself, but given the article I'd probably have taken it to talk first anyway. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this discrepancy. The lead is correct; I have fixed the text. What happened is that all the initial reporting said "first U.S. President," and it wasn't until later that people searched the records and discovered that in fact this is the first time that ANY U.S. officeholder has been impeached twice. I added a source. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump isn't the first US officeholder, as HuffPo.au and now the body of the article claim. It's only a narrowly defined subset of US officeholders who can be impeached. The above-linked List of formal impeachments uses the word officers per the Constitution. Under current statutory U.S. definitions, all of the individuals listed are federal officials, and a few of them are also federal officeholders. Per 11 CFR 113.1, a "federal officeholder" is defined as an individual elected to or serving in the office of President or Vice President of the United States; or a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States.. Per 44 USCS § 3315, a "federal official" is any individual holding the office of President or Vice President of the United States, or Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States, or any officer of the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the Federal Government. Other officeholders receive notices of termination. The lead says "federal officeholder" which is correct but currently only refers to four people. We'd probably be better off to stick to "first president," less chance for confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The link you posted shows that Federal judges can be and have been impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Cabinet secretaries too. Altogether the House has voted 21 impeachments of federal officeholders, or officials if you prefer; whatever you call them, they were impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. Only four of them were of presidents. And only one of them - Trump - has been impeached twice. I am open to changing "officeholders" to "officials" if you think the distinction is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Media personality instead of just television
Would it not be better to use "media personality" instead of "television personality" this can potentially be misleading (due to what it connotates) and it doesn't make mention of his broader media career including books and radio shows he attended. Just some friendly advice for consideration. Foxhound03 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of media that were his own, was he on anything other than TV and books (which he didn't write, either, he had ghostwriters)? We wouldn't generally think of people who have been guests on various radio programs and even TV shows as "media personalities," or even as radio or tv personalities. I mean, Malala Yousafzai was on The Daily Show and My Next Guest Needs No Introduction, but I don't think we would consider her a "television personality" or any sort of media personality. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally get you but unlike Malala, Trump has had much more media coverage in his lifetime, he had been a guest at Howard Stern's show, for example, about 24 times. Not quite prolific to much an extent but it isn't exactly a territory he isn't familiar with and he was also in a decent number of films (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_filmography) as compared to appearances on television.Foxhound03 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The one benefit I can see of using "media personality" would be it includes potentially his use of Twitter - he was the 6th most followed Twitter account at the time of his suspension, and a significant portion of his time was spent Tweeting. Just a consideration - it's neither here nor there - but he was a personality on more than just TV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's mental health" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Donald Trump&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sun8908 ── Talk 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus #17
Mandruss is taking a short Wikibreak, so I have taken the liberty of modifying Consensus item #17 per the consensus in this discussion. I don't know how to proceed from here. My proposal is a moratorium for a month or so, see what Trump is up to, and then start a new discussion about the first sentence and/or paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating 17. I don't think a moratorium is necessary; we haven't yet had a properly-structured discussion about this (meaning a ranked choice straw poll, as opposed to serial proposals), and I think we could probably get to either consensus or a two-choice-finalist-RFC in like a week's time through such a discussion on this page. Levivich harass/hound 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why has the current consensus no been restored?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the one decided yesterday, that was a temporary one because in the thread I started people had disagreements over Levivich's proposal, and I didn't want an edit war. So I found one which wouldn't get instantly reverted. replaced mine with Levivich's later, and since that one had stronger consensus and there have been no issues, I see no reason to change it back. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 08:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn’t replace your edit with Levivich's. This is my edit, i.e., the wording of the interim solution in consensus #17. It was "reverted" in two edits by Spark1498. Then edited the sentence to comply with consensus #17,  showed up and "corrected",  reverted to consensus 17; Abdul Muhammad1, and finally   "per suggestion on TP". Also pinging and.

Three editors started new discussions here, here and here (pinging those I haven’t pinged yet, ). Sdkb, you proposed discussing the individual parts of the first paragraph instead of several complete proposals. The three discussions actually do that, with editors deciding that 8 comments in a 6-hour period is discussion enough and that the version they personally like best goes into the article. Is there any way we can get an actual discussion on a permanent consensus 17 going? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute here seems to revolve around certain words (i.e. 'served as' vs 'was', 'media personality' vs 'television personality', etc.) Building on Sdkb's idea, maybe having an RfC deciding which phrasing should be used in each context would work? Giraffer (talk·contribs) 12:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm beyond frustrated at this point. All that needed to happen was for an experienced, uninvolved editor to come in before noon yesterday and close the giant prewriting discussion as "no consensus, so default to interim proposal 2 as the closest thing to the status quo". That would have settled the issue enough that all the talk forks could have been closed and changes away from that version reverted, and we could've revisted the question in a productive, structured way in maybe a week, when things are a little more settled. I asked for a close a week in advance at ANRFC, and then yesterday more urgently at AN, but no one stepped up, so now we've got at least four discussions, a live version that again is misaligned with the status quo/prevailing consensus, and wasted energy here at talk trying to battle out the question in the absence of a framework that would make that discussion productive. I'll try to be as clear as I can: the only thing responsible editors should be doing right now is reverting the page to current consensus item 17 (even if they're not personally a fan of that wording) and shutting down talk forks. Debates on the ideal wording are putting the cart before the horse—we can have those productively once we've gotten the status quo settled. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 13:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that #17 no longer has consensus at all and should just be stricken in its entirety for now (and the HTML comment removed from the lead of the article). (TBH, when I said thanks for updating #17, I didn't anticipate that it would be used as a tool to freeze the lead, as it now has been. I don't agree that the "second interim proposal" actually had consensus, or that anything has consensus post-inauguration. I thought the update was more a clerical notation than a new rule we must all follow.) The conversation about the lead seems productive to me, it's moving closer to agreement, with the remaining sticking points being "was/served as" and "businessman/real estate developer". Either way, let's let that convo continue, we'll get to consensus soon enough (at least on a lead sentence), at which point we can update #17. Levivich harass/hound 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021
Change "Donald Trump was the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021" to "Donald Trump is an American politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." The "was" implies that he's dead. Crucialpounds13 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * — We're trying to come to a consensus. See above. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">Thanoscar21talk<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.6em;'>contributions 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

While we come to a consensus, could it at least be changed to one of the other suggestions in the meantime so that it doesn't say "was"? I feel like using "was" is the least effective choice, even if it's temporary! 100.15.176.110 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Verb tense in the lead
I've been squeezing out outdated verb tenses in the article today - the annoying "has been", etc. I think that's for the better. In some cases it is modestly premature, but seemed innocuous to change now. I post here because I see such verb tenses (unsure of the precise wording to describe "has ...") are also in the lead; it would be a simple matter to correct such verbs to a simple past tense. But it is the lead, so I solicit something like a green light to just do it. e.g. "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." should be left alone, but "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Trump has made many false and misleading statements..." to "His election and policies sparked numerous protests. Trump made many false and misleading statements...", etc. Bdushaw (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we wait until after the 20th (at which time I suspect it have all its changes made at once, by some who has them all lined up and ready to slam into the article the minute Biden says "so help me God". I also suspect the page will be full-protected on that day to stop people from changing it prematurely.) After the inauguration-day changes have been made, we can then decide about any remaining verb tenses. In your example I would agree with changing "have sparked" to "sparked", but not with changing "has made" to "made" false statements, because that is likely to be ongoing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested changing "have sparked" to "sparked" some time back, but there was no consensus. Editors argued that someone in Australia raising an eyebrow counted as a protest. Hence, so long as there are eyebrows somewhere, and the infamy of Trump continues to be noised abroad, the protests will continue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The tense is called Present perfect (simple) - it tends to be ignored more often in US English where simple past is relied on more, especially in spoken or informal English. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "have sparked" should be changed to "sparked". "Have sparked" makes it sound like he's still in a position to implement policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It still says "was"!
This is a little ridiculous. The lead sentence still says "was"! I understand there have been ongoing discussions about this, but how is it that the default result in the meantime is "Donald John Trump was. . ." anything, which seems to be the worst possible option? Aren't the discussions more about whether to include politician, businessman, real estate developer, and/or media personality? While that is being debated, I don't think anyone was disputing that Trump "IS" something, and is not deceased. There seemed to be consensus to not begin the lead with "was." Please, for the love of god, change it so that he "is" something, even if it's "Donald John Trump is an American man who served. . ." -- SOMETHING! 100.15.176.110 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it. MOS:BLPTENSE is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also clearly not prevailing consensus to use "served as", as you changed it to, per the section above. I'm disappointed to see an admin making an edit that clearly goes against consensus and against current consensus item 17. I warned that I would take the next person who modified the lead against consensus to arbitration enforcement, and I'm very tempted to carry through with that. This is also yet another (are we at a half dozen yet?) talk fork that you should have closed rather than replying to. Splintering into a gazillion sections is certainly not helping this mess. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm disappointed to see MOS:BLPTENSE not being followed. No other page on the wiki starts with "was" for a person who is alive. This seems to be a case to WP:IAR to me. I only just now noticed that appendage to consensus #17. It was not well formed, IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Muboshgu's edit, it was in good faith (and the wording with 'was' was truly the worst interim option to settle on). I think that opening arbitration would be a massive waste of time and does not in any way help or improve the situation. Sometimes rules are just dumb. WP:IAR totally applies. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, there's nothing well formed because no one answered the call I put out for it to be closed. But in the absence of something solid, we default to the status quo or the prevailing consensus, both of which point to "was" as opposed to "served as". Now that I have pointed this out to you, please switch back to using "was" (keeping "is an American politician" at the front is alright with me, as I don't see prevailing consensus against that, and it solves the tense complaints). If you decline to do so, you will be in violation of the discretionary sanctions for this page and I will respond accordingly. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe I have violated DS as I haven't reverted anything. However, is an American politician who was is fine with me. I don't care about "was" vs "served as", but I do care about MOS:BLPTENSE. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to note that the consensus in the section above tends towards "served as" options over "was" options - and I'm unsure of any other consensus that Sdkb is referring to, but the current consensus trend above is towards a policy based "served as" as opposed to was. I think in this instance, any editor warring against "served as" would be in violation of policy and forming consensus, but I won't be the one to take them for sanctions nor to readd "served as". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I linked to the consensus I referenced. That consensus formed during a discussion that was active for nearly a month, so in my view it takes precedence over the messy scramble we're currently enduring. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to this, then no. Absolutely not. I will never consider "consensus" on a specific set of sentences to be binding in this manner. Consensus for words, sure, but consensus for sentences as a whole is never "we all agree this is the best". That is a failure on yours, and others', parts, in trying to "force" people to not edit things. "Served as" is the precedent here, and you have provided no good policy-based reason to go against that precedent. I'll also note that my reading there does not show some massive consensus for "was" over "served as" - if you do feel so, please feel free to post an explanation of why you do - otherwise, anyone editing the article otherwise cannot be reverted (by you) based on your reading of the consensus, as you're involved. TLDR: the discussion was muddied by attempts to enforce full sentences instead of narrowing the questions down to what their base is - and as such, it has become impossible to find a consensus for any particular word(s) in the "was" or "served as" space from that discussion. This discussion, OTOH, is forming a quick consensus for served as. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I argued forcefully for exactly that sort of segmentation but was ignored, so I'm rather skeptical you actually fully read the discussion above you are characterizing (the current multi-option discussion is no more segmented, though, so it's no better.) None of the discussions here have been formally closed (despite my strenuous calls for them to be, which could have averted this mess; 's non-close close above notwithstanding). In that situation, the proper route for us to take is to fall back on the language that is closest to the status quo until we figure out what the consensus is. The status quo language is "is", which we obviously can't use, but "was" is a lot closer to "is" than "served as". It does not violate any MoS rules or give the appearance Trump has died when preceded by "is an American politician", and it's frankly astonishing some editors are continuing to make that ridiculous claim. I am reverting the unjustified edit warring away from "was", and I continue to be frustrated by both the editors causing disruption by warring on the page in the absence of consensus, and the fact that no closer stepped up before noon Wednesday despite my loud and repeated warnings that exactly this dispute would arise if they didn't. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Am I the only person aware that "served" is past tense as well as "was"?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He still is the 45th president, as he is still alive. Saying he *was* the 45th President implies he is dead, because there is no other way for him being the 45th president to be past tense. He will be the 45th president, alive, until he dies. The tense is not the problem so much as the word choice is. “Served as” is a neutral way to say “was prior, is still alive, but is not x any longer” in past tense, and this is used on other politicians articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't accept your view of the English language, . Can you provide a source to support the claim that "was" means someone has died. For example, if I say that John Smith was the third husband of Elizabeth Brown, does that mean he is dead??? Alternatively, would it be correct to say John Smith is the third husband of Elizabeth Brown, if they divorced years ago???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not about whether you agree or disagree with the rules, WP:WAS very clearly states that it’s inappropriate to use “was” in this situation. It even uses Barack Obama’s article as and example! ChipotleHater (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who works professionally to correct bad grammar, Jack is 100% correct. is an American politician who was the 45th is perfectly good grammar and does not violate WP:WAS. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw your comments on User:GoodDay's WP:AE, and I strongly disagree that the discussion is leaning for the use of "was." Based on the vote above, there are 13 people in favor of using "served as" in some capacity, and 4 people in favor of using "was." I am not sure why it was changed on the main article, especially since it does not have broad consensus (or even majority support). (Sidenote: Please stop making me defend Trump :P) ChipotleHater (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the latest change to Consensus #17. I didn't see any formal closure of Talk:Donald_Trump. Meanwhile there is Talk:Donald_Trump.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Right. Also per WP:LOCALCON this talk cannot override BLP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to put common sense into the intro of this article, is always so frustrating. For goodness sake, the lad is still alive & so using "was" is a bad comedy. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: BTW some of the dead former US presidents & vice presidents bios, also use "who served", oddly enough. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If we are using "served as" for practically all former government officials, I do not see any reason for using "was" in the article about Trump. Felix558 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears I messed up earlier & so have been reported at WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should use standard convention that the community has been using for other articles of this nature for over a decade as per MOS:BLPTENSE.-- Moxy 🍁 01:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Independent of the "was" controversy, I think defining him as a politician (and not a businessman or television personality) in the first sentence is UNDUE and inaccurate. I would favour the following. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there's already a consensus or discussion somewhere that explains why American politician is the only one in the lead. His 4 years as president trumps (ha) all of his previous work, and should be mentioned first. ChipotleHater (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Tweak that to "...served as...", as Trump is still alive. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aleatory, I would be alright with that, and I'd like to see it given serious consideration. Getting that to happen might be a challenge, though, as above seems to be where people are trying to have the main discussion now, and that's already well under way. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is very simple folks. Trump an American businessman and TV personality who  the president. And no, he did not "serve as" the president.  No one drafted him into servitude. And he was not standing in as if president (well, not legally speaking; a counter-argument is often enough made when it comes to duty/responsibility). So "served as" would not make sense here. I know that some people like to use this silly phrase in reference to government work, but it's a WP:NPOV and WP:TONE problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish we could come to an agreement on this for all the former US presidents & former US vice president. But saying he 'was' the 45th president of the United States, is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice" - removed from lead
The statement that Trump is the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to be impeached twice was recently removed from the lead section, with the edit summary "Reverting recently added trivia."

I disagree with this removal, and find it frankly baffling. His unprecedented second impeachment seems to me to be an obviously defining feature of his presidency and his life. Notably, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions this exact fact in the fourth sentence of its entry on Trump ("Trump was the third president in U.S. history (after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and the only president to be impeached twice...").

Given that this is a high-traffic article and is on the main page right now, I'm seeking views of others with a view to an expedited restoration of this content. Neutralitytalk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore (as OP). Neutralitytalk 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore At worst, it's innocuous, but it is just a few words and widely noted in RS.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't need this kind of trivia here. It's more than sufficient to say that he was impeached twice. We don't need to astonish readers with peculiar facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is not a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per Jack Upland. JLo-Watson (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore It is historic and encyclopedic. A defining characteristic of this period--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore. This isn’t a trivial statistic. It’s an important fact that distinguishes Trump from all other officeholders, including the two presidents who were impeached before him. I would prefer the term "president," though, which is also used by Encyclopedia Brittanica. In the body we can mention that he was the only president and federal officer who was graced with this honor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lead is not a place to dump trival statistics about he is the First to do X or Y or the only X to do Z. We summarise meaning content in the lead not first Xs or Ys which have little or no encylopedic value. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Restore While I fully appreciate the arguments being made by those voting oppose (I guess it does fall under the "trivia" banner a little bit), I feel that this is so significant that it does require a mention. That said, I think the lead is currently way too big so I'm not super passionate about it being there. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore It is not trivial in the slightest to note in the lead, it is the defining aspect of the man's presidency. There have been 4 impeachments in 232 years; one man holds half of them, nearly within a single calendar year. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore per nom and ValarianB. lovkal (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore to the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore/keep this is hardly trivia; and actually yes, it is common practice to "dump stuff" like this in the lead. Are we going to exclude from the lead that Obama was not the first African American president now, or Harris is not the first female in the executive branch? Being impeached twice, especially since there are so few that are impeached at all, is extremely significant, and certainly stands out from ever president prior. Aza24 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think whoever closes this discussion should be mindful that at least some participants are mistaken about the disagreement, as Aza24 is here. This is not about whether Trump was impeached twice (which we all seem to agree should be included), it is whether we say he was the first/only president/office holder to be impeached twice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Restore per nom. Mgasparin (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore per nom and ValarianB.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restore If Trump were the only federal officeholder in U.S. history to accomplish something positive, no one would be arguing for that fact's removal from the lead.

Comments

 * There are plenty of sources for first and/or only president, but none for "federal officeholder" that I could find. There is one source (HuffPo) for "only US officeholder" which is how Donald_Trump now reads. I'm probably overthinking this (see my edit in Talk:Donald_Trump), but wouldn't it be better to just stick to the RS and "first president" or "only president"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See the section above. There have been 21 impeachments by the House and trials in the Senate; only four were presidents. We could say "officials" instead of "officeholders" if you think the distinction is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hilarious
I am not American, however, I came across this page.

The page about Trump is vastly opinion-based with many connecting pages that are also opinion-based.

Wiki is supposed to be accurate to (facts) and impartial, note that public opinion & public news is not evidence of facts.

There are many other pages of people who have committed racism, yet the wiki pages have not permitted the data entries.

I am not personally a fan of Trump, however, I believe general statements are acceptable such as Trump was accused of racism, but opinion based entries should be removed.

Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a personal biography of individuals with data based on individual opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:3173:4A46:FEC8:29DC (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem confused. This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. A wiki is ANY hypertext publication collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience directly using a web browser. This talk page is for discussing explicit improvements to the Donald Trump article. Generalised sweeping criticisms such as yours above are unhelpful. If you have specific concerns about a part or parts of the article, please let us know. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually the only way to avoid wp:or is to use third-party published material. By the way, all sources are just "opinions".Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)