Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56

Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote?
Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President of the United States" will know whether they are on the right page or not. Siuenti (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is "of the United States" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President" will know whether they are on the right page or not.  The answer is that both "incumbent" and "of the United States" are vital information to confirm who this BLP is about, even though all of those words could conceivably be removed if one were overzealous about being concise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may know that no other Donald Trumps have been president of anything, but I don't think everyone else does. Siuenti (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page doesn't list anyone else who's been president of anything, AFAIK. Isn't the fact that this person is an incumbent "vital" information?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with including "incumbent president of the United States" for perfect clarity. Is there any valid reason NOT to include it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) See below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of... I agree, keep it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HATNOTE says "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking" and "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader" Siuenti (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A hatnote at Andrew Jackson might reasonably read, "This article is about the President of the United States. For other uses, see Andrew Jackson (disambiguation)." Thus "incumbent" is not superfluous here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So people who see "President of the United States" without "incumbent" are going to be wondering if they've got the wrong President Donald Trump of the USA? Siuenti (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not. That does not mean that "incumbent" is superfluous, per my previous comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the word with the edit summary "no other President of the United States known as Donald Trump". The hatnote should be a tool to help readers navigate to what they actually want to read, but if they accidentally stumble upon this page they won't confuse with another Donald Trump who was POTUS so no need to have the unnecessary word. In a case like George Bush and his son/father I would accept the use of an explanatory word. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored it. You should not have removed it while it was under discussion. Since it is longstanding wording, the default is to keep it while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove – "Incumbent" is wholly unnecessary in the hatnote, just like "current" was determined by consensus to be wholly unnecessary in the lead sentence. — JFG talk 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I supported removal of "current" because of the use of "incumbent" in the hatnote. It's entirely standard to have one or the other.. This is the primary distinguishing feature between Trump and all the other presidents of the U.S.  If we want to make this into a long, drawn-out discussion, I suppose that another option would be to instead say that he is the president of the United States, and the 45th, but it's very awkward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have trouble following your reasoning here: are you saying that either the lead sentence or the hatnote should have some indication of "current" or "incumbent", because it's otherwise unclear? Think about it this way: we say Trump "is" the president of the United States; all others "were" presidents; present tense is plenty enough to frame him as the current president. — JFG talk 06:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I am saying that, and no we don't say that Trump "is the president of the United States". We say that he "is the 45th president of the United States", and that does not clearly indicate he's the incumbent.  So having "incumbent" in the hat is harmless and useful.  Incidentally, per MOS:BIO, "If a person is living but has retired, use 'is a former' or 'is a retired' rather than the past tense 'was'."  So we shouldn't say Jimmy Carter was the president or even that he was the 39th president (note too that the living former presidents still have the title "president").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Was my preceding comment disruptive or in bad faith? It must have been since it was ignored completely.  MelanieN was ignored completely.  IP69 was ignored completely.  Mandruss was ignored completely.  Etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK revert if you wish and we'll continue the discussion. "incumbent" in the hatnote seems to have gone from "vital" to "harmless and useful". I'll remind you that WP:HATNOTE says "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader." Siuenti (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was harmless, useful, and vital.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove and rephrase. "Titles such as president and king are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president." (MOS:JOBTITLES.)
 * A model DAB entry: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. president 1933–1945". (WP:DABNOT.)
 * "This article is about the incumbent President of the United States." No, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States. More concisely, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent U.S. president. Most concisely and formally, it's about Donald Trump, the U.S. president (or, alternatively, the American president).
 * But perhaps we ought to draw an overt parallel between Elizabeth II and Donald I, by going with the hatnote? ("Elizabeth II  A featured article... For other uses, see...") Not: "Elizabeth II This article is about the incumbent Queen of the United Kingdom. For other uses see..." (or the like). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, especially when the other uses are so much less notable. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove the entire hat note.- The lede sentence tells you this man is the sitting president of the United States. WP:COMMONSENSE. Not to mention, the disambig is not necessary. Everything there refers to Donald Trump. I don't see a need to sort out Donald Trump, Jr., since his article is clearly titled as such. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the unrelated Donald L Trump needs to be linked somehow. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove "incumbent" It's totally unnecessary to have that word there, doesn't add anything. We do need the hatnote though because someone looking for the oncologist, for instance, might not know the middle initial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove the entire first sentence as unnecessary. To be useful, the hatnote need only read "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)". Thousands of articles follow that format. Station1 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The short form as in the Elizabeth II example is brilliantly concise and clear, and it seems to be used in many places; I'll apply this now. — JFG talk 18:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove the entire first sentence. A simple other persons is sufficient. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The dab page has a lot more stuff than other persons, therefore I applied a simple Other uses, which seems to me the simplest and most elegant solution on hand. — JFG talk 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I agree a simple Other uses is just fine. Additional verbiage is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove other uses template alone is enough, anything else is superfluous with the current dab entries. Widefox ; talk 10:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey about lead
The hatnote and lead paragraph: "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States."
 * Support. This is fine.  One-sentence paragraphs are bad form.  That said, I also support keeping "incumbent" in the hatnote if the lead paragraph continues to omit that he is the current president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the vital information is where it belongs. Siuenti (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Status quo Whatever is in the article seems just fine, per above... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Current consensus version of the lead sentence was debated at length and firmly established, see, item 11. No new developments warrant a change. — JFG talk 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support hatnote per WP:DABNOT. "The name only is sufficient in FDR (disambiguation) (for example, to distinguish the president from a flight data recorder)." Oppose lead paragraph for syntax (lack of parallel structure) and lack of conciseness. Better:"For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization."Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS and the comment by Anythingyouwant we ought to minimize the number of single-sentence paragraphs. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Minimize and eliminate are not synonymous, and 1 is about as minimized as we can get. Very sparing use of single-sentence can be viewed as a good thing from a readability standpoint, not unlike the principle that mixing sentences of different length is a good thing. If there is any place for a single-sentence paragraph, it's the first paragraph in the article. I don't disagree with your entire !vote, necessarily, just that relatively minor point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like that version because it doesn't make clear he is the president now. The 45th is what makes it ambiguous, I suggest putting it in brackets for clarity. This would also avoid it looking like one long link instead of two. Siuenti (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We've been here before, at least twice. The verb "is" is present tense. We don't say that Barack Obama is the 44th president. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do. He is still "President Obama" and he is still the 44th.  Why you folks decline to insert a harmless word of clarification is beyond me, even if you (mistakenly) think it's unnecessary.  As Dervorguila has shown (perhaps inadvertently), the custom at Wikipedia is to be clear about this (see Obama, GW Bush, QEII, etc.).  And User:Mandruss already said above that, "'incumbent' is not superfluous here" regarding the hatnote, so I really don't understand how it could be non-superfluous in the hatnote but superfluous in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the hatnote does not (and cannot) contain the present-tense verb "is". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:BIO forbids us to use "the past tense 'was'" for any of the living former presidents. And anyway, User:Mandruss,  each one of the living former presidents retains the title "president".  See also here: "In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either 'President Carter' or 'Mr. Carter.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Addressing Obama as "Mr. President" is a completely different thing from saying he "is" the 44th president. Anyway, see my !vote below, which rationale I believe outweighs any of this. We are quibbling about things that have precious little connection to reader value. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss, According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".  I could go on and on with further quotations like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean by "really compelling new argument" in my !vote. Do you dispute that there are likely signifiicant problems with important things like neutrality and verifiability, in this and other articles, that are being neglected because so many editors are tied up in tunnel-vision debates about minutiae like a single word in a sentence that has a clear consensus? If you do, you're wrong. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not telling readers he's the current president is a problem worth discussing. Unfortunately it seems we also have to discuss whether or not it's worth discussing. Siuenti (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is the case, since that's the vastly larger and more important issue. It's the entire point of having the consensus list in the first place, and those of us who have been around since its inception have witnessed its very real, tangible benefits firsthand. As far as I can tell, most of the regulars here appreciate those benefits. We understand that it's a trade-off, but we feel it's a good one. Editors at other articles are free to disagree at those articles. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite mind-boggling that anyone would think it's unimportant to say in the lead that he is the current POTUS. This article will never be a good article much less a featured article if it omits such critical information that has been presented in similar BLPs (GW Bush, B Obama, QEII).  And there have always been ways to include this information that would have completely addressed the concerns of both sides, e.g. by saying he has been in office since January 2017.  This intransigence and unwillingness to seek compromise is very worrisome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is whether to mention that in the hatnote and the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I say otherwise? It's been in the hatnote for months.  Now several editors want to completely delete from the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Trump is the current POTUS.  Please see Not My Presidents Day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that the discussion is only to delete it from the hatnote. I used and, as in whether we should have it in both the hatnote and the lead or merely just the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Emir of Wikipedia, I think you're mistaken. The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States."  That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States".  According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".  So, the discussion is now about whether both the hatnote and the lead paragraph should exclude that Trump is currently in office as president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11. There is no consensus on the hatnote, and we haven't spend a huge amount of editor time discussing that. Make a proposal for a hatnote by itself, and my oppose will likely become a support. If that gains a clear consensus, it will be added to the list. Moral of the story: Smaller proposals make smaller targets and are therefore more likely to gain consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus 11 is subject to change like any other consensus. I am really surprised that you want to keep consensus 11 the way it is for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, and I do not believe that's how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.  Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote.  That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, - That is not...even...close to an accurate statement of my position on consensus 11. I think I articulated it fairly thoroughly and clearly. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You said, "I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11." If I misunderstood that comment, so be it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those 13 words were not intended to fully represent my other 240 words on the subject in this thread. Nor could they. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JFG. New arrivals are encouraged to review the discussions that form the current consensus, helpfully linked at item 11. Alternatively, they can simply be impressed by the six (6) discussion links there, and imagine the amount of editor time that must have been consumed by those discussions. Unless someone has some really compelling new argument, we should leave well enough alone and spend our limited time on things that haven't already been discussed to death. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th, and current, President of the United States. with deletion of "He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States." The lede sentence tells the reader that, and doubtful anybody else is thought to be the current president at the moment. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Mandruss. What we have is fine. Time to get on with other things. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Anythingyouwant makes the point below that past presidents are referred to by their number, and in the present tense. This is because they will always be that number. So Anything wants to distinquish that, while Trump is and always will be the 45th, he is also right now, the current president. I've not read through all the walls of text to know if Anything previously articulated it that way, and I'm not going to. It's far easier to mention it here as a comment. So Anything is correct, we should mention that Trump is the current president. Past consensus failed to take that bit into account. Or maybe it did, but I've already stated my position on walls of text. And I would absolutely put this to an RfC if it comes down to it, because he's dead on right. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about survey
Several people have suggested removing "incumbent" from the hatnote, and several people have suggested keeping it there. So we are properly considering a compromise that would tweak the lead paragraph and remove "incumbent" from the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dervorguilla, why do you oppose saying in both the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Donald Trump is the incumbent or current president? Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States, and he still carries the title of president.  As I read your proposed version, Donald Trump might be out of office just like Carter.  It is very standard at Wikipedia to say that the current president is the current president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare with FA Elizabeth II: "For other uses, see Elizabeth II (disambiguation). Elizabeth II ... has been Queen of the United Kingdom ... and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of 12 countries..." Also with GA George W. Bush: "For other people named George Bush, see George Bush (disambiguation). George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States. He served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 until 2000..." And with FA Barack Obama: "...For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation). Barack Hussein Obama II ... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States. The first African American ... to serve as president, Obama is a member of the Democratic Party." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dervorguilla, if it was okay to say "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President" (emphasis added), and likewise for Obama, then why are you opposing any mention (either in the hatnote or the lead paragraph) that Trump is the current or incumbent president??? Your draft in green completely omits that Trump is the current or incumbent president, right???Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Nonetheless, I do think we could all live (however unhappily) with "Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th and current president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization."
 * So, yes, we could use "...and current..." But we don't need to. Wikipedia could say "She is ... the current queen of 12 countries..." But it chooses not to.
 * I'm willing to support either version. Let's just go with the consensus on this one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dervorguilla, the QEII lead paragraph very clearly indicates that she is currently the Queen: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952" (emphasis added). Yet you seem to be saying that it would be fine if we omit any such indication in the hatnote and lead paragraph of the Trump BLP that he is still in office as president.  If the consensus is to leave this vital fact out of the hatnote and lead, then I'm not going to edit-war about it, but it seems exceedingly silly, IMHO.  I am not insisting on the word "current" or the word "incumbent".  It would be equally okay to say that Trump has been in office since January 2017.  But to completely omit that he is now in office strikes me as odd and inappropriate, and completely different from all the examples you cite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should emphasize that I can live with "... 45th and current president of the United States..." And this construction does eliminate the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem. But neither construction is inappropriate. And neither one is odd. (It may however seem that way if you've been working on the article too long!) ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The current sentence is actually badly constructed ("Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.") because the items in the list are different (indefinite and definite). Consider "X is an A,B, and the C"... does that seem right to you? One possibility would be "...television personality and politician serving as". Siuenti (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You stated above, "Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote. That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead." But the lede sentence is in the present tense of the verb 'to be.' It says, "is" which makes him the current/incumbent president. We really only need a disambig line. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States." That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States".  According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they've said it about Ronald Reagan, too. You cannot use old sources to suggest these past-presidents are still president because a source uses what number they were. Wikipedia doesn't say they are presently president in their articles.It says he's the 45th. . SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Were the four sources that I just linked to published after Carter and Clinton left office? Why yes, they were.  I grow weary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to use incumbent, that's fine, but I'd support For grammar's sake, use this Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th, and current, President of the United States.  SW3 5DL (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald
The Donald redirects here and not to /r/The_Donald, which in common speak is referred to as just The Donald. Should we mention this in the hatnote, redirect, or something else entirely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support redirecting The Donald to the reddit forum, which is probably primary topic for this expression in this day and age vs the 1990s. — JFG talk 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Universally acceptable text (?)
The comments above represent a classic consensus-building discussion, "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". The following text appears to more-or-less incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns:"For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States."
 * Support. Not the most concise wording, perhaps. But it does follow the recommendations given in WP:ONESHORTHAT (generally, a hat should list no more than a disambiguation page); WP:HNS (omit hat summary if most English speakers know, e.g., that subject Donald Trump is the current US president); WP:SEAOFBLUE (avoid placing links next to each other); MOS:PARAGRAPHS (minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs); WP:BETTER (use one-sentence paragraphs sparingly); comparison articles FA Barack Obama (19 January 2017) ("...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..."; 2-sentence lead graf)), GA George W. Bush (19 January 2009), and FA Elizabeth II ("For other uses, see Elizabeth II (disambiguation)"; 2-sentence lead graf); and Chicago Manual of Style (parallel structure: modifiers). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, because it's almost the same as the version I proposed above, which said this in the second sentence: "He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States." I prefer "incumbent" to "current" because the latter sounds to me a lot like "for the time being", but I could live with "current".  If no change to the lead paragraph is accepted, then I support keeping "incumbent" in the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it doesn't begin to incorporate this editor's legitimate concerns. Perhaps you don't see my concerns as legitimate? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is grammatically correct and also accurate, as Anythingyouwant pointed out earlier. Donald Trump is and always will be the 45th president, and right now he is the current president. And that distinction needs to be there. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I now believe we should omit "This article is about..." wording in the hatnote. I originally supported keeping it but I see that it is not used in other articles about presidents, not even those where disambiguation is necessary like John Adams or George Bush. I think we have enough of a consensus here that I think we can go ahead and remove it.
 * I always preferred saying "current" president in the lede sentence, but we have discussed that many times here and I have been outvoted. Consensus was repeatedly to leave it out; see consensus #11 above. There is no way we can change that with a little add-on like this to another discussion. It would require a full RfC, and IMO we have had enough of those and should continue to leave it out as per previous consensus - and move on to more important matters. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus to eliminate "current" and "incumbent" from both the hatnote and the lead paragraph. You do, User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see about two-to-one in favor of reducing the hatnote to a simple "for other uses...". which I think is enough to implement that. I see enough disagreement about whether to put "incumbent" or "present" in the lede sentence that it might warrant one more formal RfC discussion, properly formatted and advertised. (I'm not saying we SHOULD do another RfC, just that we can't implement this change without one - due to the multiple previous discussions that gave us consensus #11. I would also say that if a new RfC comes up with the same result as the previous ones, we should put a moratorium on any further discussion of that subject.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An RfC should be limited to the version above and the one in the article. That seems to be the current choice. But you don't appear to have ivoted yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion 2
The George W. Bush (19 January 2009) GA article read: "...is the forty-third and current President of the United States. The Barack Obama (19 January 2017) FA article read: "...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..." Neither used the term "incumbent". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, but this BLP need not be verbatim the same as those BLPs. Anyway, I supported your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus #11 notwithstanding, the current language may be corrected to accord with the "parallel structure" requirement given in Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 5.212. I trust you're not arguing that an RfC is required to correct an undisputed syntax error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that Wikipedia editing is governed by CMoS, you're seriously mistaken. Even if our MoS endorses that particular point, it's still a nit that doesn't outweigh the "consensus 11" arguments, and our MoS is not the last word, ever. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Which of your most important concerns does it not address? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't have the time to address everything, so we have to set priorities and let some of the smaller things slide. We need to say that the six discussions on the first sentence are enough, until that sentence becomes patently false. If we discover that his birthdate is stated incorrectly, we can speedily amend consensus 11. If the United States changes its name to Divided States during his presidency, we can fix that. But we don't wish to repeatedly resurrect first-sentence debates about whether it should say "politician", whether people really need to be told that he is currently in office despite constant news coverage about him from virtually every news outlet on the planet, and so on. This line of thinking originated in the interminable debates about the infobox photo, and many of us said: "Enough. Not worth this much time. Stop. WP:IAR trumps WP:CCC in this case." That thinking has persisted. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my Oppose at and my comments in the threaded discussion just above that, beginning at 08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC). As far as I can tell, JFG, MelanieN, and SusanLesch basically concur. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your most important concern that "we should leave well enough alone and spend our limited time on things that haven't already been discussed to death"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I guess you could say that's my only concern. But it's larger than this immediate question; it's about the role of the consensus list, and maybe we need a consensus about that . For now, however, we have to re-debate that over and over again, and I think JFG, MelanieN, and possibly Scjessey have been with me fairly consistently, to wit:
 * WP:IAR recommends, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:CCC doesn't appear to prevent us from improving this article. And check out the TRUMP project page, where Objective #4 calls for "correcting every grammatical error (big or small)" in this and related articles . --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have stated my reasoning and I am unconvinced by yours. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dervorguilla. In fact, at this point, consensus has changed. I've previously supported not using 'current' based on the logic that the verb form "To be" in present tense was 'is,' and that should be enough. But now I see the distinction because previously nobody mentioned that the same verb is used for past-presidents because they are numbered. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reminder. "I always preferred saying 'current' president in the lede sentence, but we have discussed that many times here and I have been outvoted." Yes, and perhaps it may be time to apply WP:CCC policy. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments." It does appear that no one had considered the argument about the syntax error. Also, "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion"; only if "talk page discussions fail" is an RfC required. And this particular talk page discussion actually seems near to achieving a reasonable compromise consensus on (at least) two proposed changes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This will correct an omission that Anythingyouwant seems to be the only one to have pointed out. I'm not going to go back over all the previous discussion because obviously it did not solve the problem of this omission. I think this is a simple fix, and should not be meeting any obstruction, really. This is for the benefit of the article, and I guarantee you that if we were to get this article anywhere near GA, without the proposed language, a reviewer would point this out and want it there. We are a long way from GA as it is, might as well get started with the first sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are lots of valid opinions and arguments in this discussion; however it has been somewhat muddled by mixing proposed changes to the hatnote and proposed changes to the lead sentence. My current reading of the discussion is that we have rough consensus to keep the shortest hatnote Other uses, so I would ask the reverting editor for permission to switch back to this short version, which I had implemented . Then we can continue discussing the lead sentence: there is no clear consensus yet, and given the history of controversy about this very sentence, I believe that any consensus change should be cemented by a formal RfC, otherwise it will be repeatedly contested, and waste productive editor time. Accordingly, I am not yet voicing an opinion on the latest proposal by . — JFG talk 12:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether to remove from the hatnote that he's the current president is closely intertwined with the issue of whether to insert that same information into the lead paragraph. Trying to discern separate consensuses is unnecessary, difficult, and unwise.  I'd be glad to have an RFC that resolves this whole matter all at once.  It seems uncommonly silly to turn this BLP into an advertisement for the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements, while turning our list of 1RR exemptions into a list of consensuses that can never change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * a list of consensuses that can never change Again, that's an unconstructive, grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of the position, incorrect on at least two points (I think the correct term is "straw man"). I credit you with having the competence to figure this out if you wish to. Fair debating means expending the effort to really understand your opponents' well-articulated positions (communication requires effort on both ends, and I think I've done my part). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't misrepresent anything, because it doesn't say anyone said anything. Obviously, no one but me has mentioned here the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements.  Relax, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, nobody is "turning this BLP into an advertisement for the Not My President movement"… What on Earth makes you think that? Simplifying a bludgeoned hatnote has no impact on readers understanding that Donald Trump is the current US President. Let's come to our senses here, please. — JFG talk 07:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JFG, by omitting from the hatnote and lead that he is the president, we (perhaps inadvertently) cater to that movement, even if we mention lower in the article or in the infobox that he's the president. That may well be entirely coincidental, but even so it is very bad editing on our part (and perhaps I am not hallucinating).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh well, you are not hallucinating but perhaps is… Her user page says she's a pessimist.  No offense meant, Tayler! Actually, could you tell us whether having the hatnote simply say "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)" would make you doubt whether he is the current president? — JFG talk 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make between being a pessimist and hallucinating, and saying "no offense meant, Tayler" doesn't make it any less offensive. I suggest not taking out your feelings of inferiority out on others and see a therapist instead. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for the diagnosis, that'll teach me! Now, what about telling us your opinion on the hatnote text? — JFG talk 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question at 07:39, 28 March 2017, User:JFG, if you make the hatnote say that, or make it say Hillary Clinton is the real president, or make it say that JFG is president, none of that would make me doubt that Trump is president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

, I wouldn't mix the two in an RfC if one solves the other. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is consensus for this change. We've done changes with three editors agreeing and I can find those diffs. It's obvious that this change needs to be made, it's nothing more than a grammar fix. MelanieN has not ivoted and she previously supported 'current.' Before, the argument was all about present tense and it being obvious that Trump was the current president. But Anythingyouwant has pointed out something we all overlooked. Trump is the 45th president and always will be 45, but right now he's also the 'current' president. Therefore, the argument against clarifying this seems childish. "I don't want to ivote because this sentence has had too many changes."??? That makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear, please read what I wrote carefully and avoid disparaging the arguments of your fellow editors. — JFG talk 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear, I did read your note. One goes with the other, as Anythingyouwant mentions in his note above. I also noted this curious exchange and your appearance here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * this curious exchange I'm really reaching the limit of my patience with your repeated AGF failures and subtle aspersions on this page. If you are accusing someone of something improper, please go to WP:ANI and say who and what. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You might try not reading between the lines. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What was "curious" about that exchange, and what was the point of mentioning it in this discussion? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments (RFC) about whether the lead paragraph should say he's the current president
Assuming that the hatnote is edited to remove that he is the current ("incumbent") president, should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The RFC question is not proposing any particular language, and is flexible regarding "current" vs. "incumbent" vs. "serving since", etc. You may indicate which specific language you prefer, but any language indicating that Trump is now president constitutes support for this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey about saying he's the current president

 * Support as proposer. This is a sensitive subject, in view of the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements.  If the lead paragraph merely says that he is the 45th president, that does not indicate he is the current president.  After all, reliable sources say that Jimmy Carter is still the 39th president, and Bill Clinton is still the 42nd president.  According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States".  According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".  It's true that our talk page includes a list of current consensuses, but that list is merely for exempting people from 1RR, not for making it more difficult to change any consensus.  The list of consensuses includes the lead sentence, but removal of incumbency from the hatnote changes the context of the lead sentence, to such an extent that I think a slight modification of the lead sentence is very much justified.  This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ("current" vs. "incumbent" vs. "serving since", etc.).  Also see the archived good article George W. Bush: "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States." See also the featured article Barack Obama: "''"is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Defining characteristic. Current, incumbent, serving all good... or put brackets round (45th). Siuenti (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary and superfluous. "Is" is a present tense verb, regardless of how some sources choose to use it (I don't think WP:V applies to grammar). The notion that this is needed because of a "not my president" controversy approaches the absurd, and I use that word very sparingly in discussion. And the first sentence has already received massive discussion, linked at item 11. It's time to call it "good enough", leave it alone, and move on to other things. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to me that it's common practice on Wikipedia, and a good one, to identify officeholders as "current" during their term of office. This is how previous presidents were described when they served, and it provides clarity.  --DavidK93 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Common practice on Wikipedia often violates the Manual of Style. MOS:CURRENT frowns on the use of time-sensitive words like "current". Yes I realize this page is updated, but saying "Trump is President" is clear that he's incumbent. Obama's page doesn't say "Obama is President" any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but it said "current" when he was president. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE should not be our guiding light here. — JFG talk 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral The real problem is the current wording of the full sentence in the lede. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, and the 45th President of the United States. It's simply too long and omits the most important information right up front and that is, Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States. This RfC will not solve that. It is ONLY suggesting that Trump's presidency be in the present tense. It DOES NOT support using the word "CURRENT.' See this RfC for another here which solves this problem. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mandruss and Muboshgu.- MrX 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, as we can remove the word 'after' Trump leaves office. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per my comment below and plain good sense.--John Cline (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Most such articles, including articles about presidents, have put "current" in the lede sentence, as noted above by Anythingyouwant and DavidK93. I don't like "serving as" because it seems like a kind of attempt to distance ourselves from saying (admitting?) that he IS the president - as opposed to just "serving as" the president.--MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 100% that it needs to say Donald J. Trump is the current President of the United States of America in one way or another simply because...well, he is!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it's what we've done with Bush and Obama and should be done with Trump. He will always be "is the 45th President" but now he is the current President. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per analogous FA Barack Obama (19 January 2017) ("...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..."); WP:CCC policy; and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – My preferred formulation would be Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. — JFG talk 07:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about saying he's the current president

 * Comment. Possible redundancy here. The infobox already says "incumbent", so it isn't exactly necessary that it be included anywhere else. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Muboshgu, not only is this page frequently updated (as you say), but also the RFC question allows "since 2017" which is a formulation explicitly favored by WP:Current.  As I already said, this RFC is not about how it should be phrased.  If we said "Trump is president" then that would take care of the problem, but we don't say that, do we?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support adding "serving since 2017" to the end of the first sentence of the lead as a way of demonstrating that he is the incumbent. My point is to not use the word "current". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That suggestion would be fine with me. I think you ought to change your !vote from "oppose" to "support", and say why.  This RFC is not about how to phrase this stuff.  The RFC question is "should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?" (emphasis added).  I explained this in my !vote: "This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ('current' vs. 'incumbent' vs. 'serving since', etc.)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment could you change the word "say" to "clarify" in the proposal so it's clear the specific wording is flexible? Siuenti (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I beg to differ. This RfC is about using the word current. You cannot bait and switch here. Your RfC is now set and you cannot change it. Editors have ivoted based on your original RfC comment. To tell another editor that you are flexible in changing the language is disruptive. Especially as the prior discussion is all about using "the 45th and current president. . ." This is what the prior discussion is about. That's what my ivote is supporting. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not change the RFC question one iota. The only thing in quotes in the RFC question is the word "incumbent" which is given this way as an example of what is meant by the word current: "current ('incumbent')".  Feel free to change your !vote if you want.  If I say "Mary said that she doesn't want to ride in the car" that obviously does not preclude that Mary said, "I would prefer to not ride in the automobile".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment#NotMyPresident. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - is serving as the 45th President of the United States of America since 2017 is an unambiguous neutral introduction of fact. While it can be said that Obama is the 44th president, it can not be said that he is serving in that capacity. Only one can serve and it is a distinction due this man since January 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs)
 * That would be fine, User:John Cline. Why not support the RFC proposal which allows this language you've proposed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do support the proposal, and have made this more clear above.--John Cline (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want that specific language you need to mention that in your ivote. Please read the notes above under the RfC question. The OP's question is misleading. He wants the word, 'incumbent.' He's never going to say, "serving as." If you want that choice, this is not that RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish. I have said repeatedly that I will be glad with any language indicating Trump is now in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no justification to assume bad faith of the OP. I believe the RFC is to determine if Donald Trump should be mentioned in the present tense without prescribing the exact prose that will be used if the RFC gains consensus. It is not a question of what "he's never going to say", but what we will collaborate to say if such mention is preferred. I appreciate you mentioning your concern, though I believe it is misplaced.--John Cline (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussions never mentioned using loose language in an RfC, but rather, the discussion had narrowed it down to, "is the 45th, and current, president." That was the language that had the most support when the OP made this RfC without previous discussion of what his RfC would say. The whole point of an RfC, and our previous discussions, was to settle on 'specific' language. This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started. I noticed you seemed to like "serving as," and I think that's a good idea, too. That's why I put the note at the top of the article so that editors will be able to voice their choice. The OP is going to have his choice, the rest of us should as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * John Cline is entirely correct. In contrast, it is incorrect to say "This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started." If the RFC wins enough support then we are emphatically not back where we started, because a successful RFC will rule out having a hatnote and lead that both omit the fact that the President of the United States is Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You should have used the specific language that editors in the previous discussion worked so hard to narrow down. You supported and participated, but you failed to discuss the RfC and the language BEFORE you went ahead. This is NOT at all what was discussed previously, and certainly this not the wording at all. The WHOLE POINT was to narrow down the sentence, to be SPECIFIC, so there would not be problems down the line. This is a mess, and this language in this RfC was never even remotely discussed as a possibility. That's just wrong. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - See this RfC for specific choices on the precise language here. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to use the reply function and put your comments here and not under ivotes. Editors are coming here to give their comment/opinion. Use the discussion section for your comments about their ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "is the President" is clear but "is the 45th President" is not, because he will continue to be the 45th President forever. Siuenti (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment use whatever we used for Bush and Obama. It's as simple as that. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sir Joseph, that would be fine with me, and that's why I supported this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is not for chosing specific words. Bush and Obama used, "is the current president." You can make that choice at this RfC here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump is not a waiter. ". . .serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017." Sounds more like a diner advert, "Serving New Yorkers since 2017." Lol. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Current
Manual_of_Style says the term "current" should be avoided. What is current today may not be tomorrow; situations change over time. Instead, use date- and time-specific text. To help keep information updated use the as of template.

Incorrect:	He is the current ambassador to ... Correct:	As of March 2011, he is the ambassador to ...
 * Just FYI Siuenti (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing the MOS says is The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Siuenti (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what the actual BLP said while she was in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another MOS section
Per Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (emphasis added): Except on pages updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, currently, to date, so far, soon, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 1990s, since 2010, and in August 1969. For current and future events, use phrases like as of March 2017 or since the beginning of 2017 to signal the time-dependence of the information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about "became the 45th President in January 2017"? Siuenti (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's ambiguous about whether he remains president. Let's see how the RFC goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

January 20 in lead please
Can we put January 20 somewhere in the lead please? For example, "He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency" could become "On January 20 he became..." Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be somewhere in the BLP, but I think putting it in the body of the article is sufficient. We already say in the lead when he was elected, and most people will assume (correctly) that he took office soon thereafter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Which one of the proposed lede sentences will best describe Trump's current status as president?
“Which one of the proposed lede sentences below, from A, B, or C, do you believe will best describe for the reader the status of Trump's presidency?


 * A. Two sentence solution
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is__
 * __the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
 * __the 45th and current President of the United States.


 * B. One sentence solution
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician__
 * __and since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States.
 * __and the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
 * __serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017.
 * __and the 45th and current President of the United States.


 * C. Keep what is there now
 * __ and the 45th President of the United States.
 * Please indicate in the survey section, A or B or C, and the number. Please also use the reply function in the discussion section if you wish to comment on another editor's choices, so as not to disrupt the survey section. Thank you. SW3 5DL


 * D. Keep it simple, and put the rest in the body of the article.
 * 1. Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.


 * E. Please note: Ad Orientem has proposed wording for the full sentence:
 * Donald John Trump'(born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.
 * Feel free to indicate support/oppose for this.

Survey on opening sentence

 * This is silly. The lead sentence should simply state what he is most famous for. Ergo it should read "Donald Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States. That's it. Nothing more. Everything else is secondary and can follow somewhere else in the lead or further down in the body of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E - 'Proposed text''' for the opening paragraph of the lead...
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * E. Per Ad Orientem. Keep it simple, and I also support the full sentence he has proposed. Thank you Ad Orientem, you've cut the Gordian Knot. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E Consistent with other articles. We do not say "Barack Obama is a community organizer and politician_"  TFD (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E, because it's not a one-sentence paragraph, and cuts right to the chase. My only qualm is with the word "current" per MOS:Current.  The word "current" sounds like "for today at least", whereas the word "incumbent" connotes a longer period of time.  But I am not going to edit-war about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E, per recommendations given in WP:SEAOFBLUE (avoid placing links next to each other); MOS:PARAGRAPHS (minimize the number of one-sentence paragraphs); and WP:BETTER (use one-sentence paragraphs sparingly). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E. Straightforward, basic, and well-written, with the most important fact first. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * E – Much clearer than everything we had so far. And seems to raise no strong objections from the regulars here; that's no small feat! — JFG talk 07:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - I see you have made this edit. Do you believe that an agreement among three four editors is enough to replace the consensus linked at  item 11? A number of editors, including me and admin, have repeatedly said that an RfC would be necessary to replace that consensus. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  16:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that another RfC is required to change anything in an article. If consensus can be reached through talk page discussion that's fine. That said my edit was WP:BOLD. I do believe the previous wording was flawed as it placed his being President at the end of the list of things for which he is known. That is contrary to normal convention and it looked almost like an afterthought. If someone wants to revert it I'm not going to edit war. But I do believe rather strongly that the current wording is much better and in line with WP:LEAD and normal convention when writing BLPs. Also I'm not seeing any opposition at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your bold edit occurred 29 minutes after you started this subsection, replacing a massive documented consensus. If that's how to behave at an article under ArbCom remedies, a whole lot of editors have been going about things the wrong way. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted per your objection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that very often it is only two or three editors deciding consensus on this page. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Point me to a single case where such a consensus replaced one like that linked at item 11. Just one. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This so-called 'consensus 11' is becoming tendentious and is disrupting this talk page. It prevents any progress in improving the article. I agree with Ad Orientem, we don't need an RfC for everything, but lately we've had to because of a few editors clinging to something that is meant to change anyway. That's just how it is on Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A 20-pound consensus is not meant to be changed by a 1-pound consensus, and that concept has been consistently re-affirmed for as long as I've been at this article. (In your shoes I think I'd lay off the disruption accusations for awhile. Recent history shows that you're not very good at judging disruption, including your own.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Current consensus is just that. It was a declaration of what consensus was at that time. I have no objection to citing it to prevent obviously disruptive editing or editors just going cowboy on the article. But using it in an effort to lock important parts of the article from organic development and improvement through routine editing is misrepresenting what an RfC is supposed to be for. The lead paragraph as it currently stands is pretty substandard and does not conform to the guideline WP:LEAD. But we apparently can't change it because at least one and maybe a few other editors believe that it is off limits sans another RfC. Something is broken here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very broken here. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, Ad Orientem. I and more than a few other editors disagree, at least judging by their past comments and behavior. We have fairly consistently subscribed to a concept of "consensus weight", and that has been how the page has operated at least since the inception of the consensus list. I'll bow out for now and see if the others want to adjust their positions based on your comments. I'm also quite close to moving on, as no Wikipedia issue is worth this much stress. This has been my primary home since about September, and perhaps that's too long in one place. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That list can stop cowboys, but it also stops editors coming here in good faith to improve the article. They open a thread and they are immediately shut down. The lede sentence has absolutely no place on that list if it stops what is now a mediocre sentence from being brought up to WP standards. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ever proper to revert because of "no consensus" or "insufficient consensus" alone. See WP:Don't revert because of no consensus.  To revert legitimately, you also have to believe substantively that the article is better after the revert than before.  So far, User:Mandruss has not opposed the version "E" proposed by User:Ad Orientem, AFAIK.  So, I am seriously considering reverting back to Version "E" which I think has unanimous support so far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We can keep incumbent in the infobox. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) You have GOT to be kidding. I'm not going to start the ANI complaint, but I would support one. Did you see JFG's comment about the impossibility of reaching a consensus with this many options? If so, do you fail to grasp the reasoning behind it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And the admin said to get consensus. These are the previous suggestions. Whatever choices get the most responses, will start to eliminate the others. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The RfC was closed but this is the new thread for consensus if you want to put in your ivote here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It says, 'prior to entering politics,' which is the same thing. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the best suggestion yet. I think that would solve it. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. It excludes the crucial "politician" - a dealbreaker for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a deal breaker because it says that he entered politics instead of that he became a politician???Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment You have got to be kidding me. this has been surveyed to death and the article needs to be stable in order to get a GA rating, just keep that in mind. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Article stability could be a problem given the nature of the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ I just don't see it getting a GA rating because the article is constantly changing back and forth. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the nature of the subject is working against a GA nomination. The unhappy fact is the article is about one of the most controversial figures in modern politics, who can't get through a week without creating some new controversy. That pretty much guarantees that the article is going to be a perpetual object of heated editing. We might as well nail the template to the top of the article until he leaves office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The nature of the subject, as well as the current state of the lede sentence. That would have to change to reach GA. I imagine it is this kind of resistance that has prevented the article from getting there in the past. I think the proposal we have now solves the problem of the lede sentence. At least for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The current lead sentence (C1) uses broken syntax, which could suggest to readers that article as a whole may be broken... Let's show them all how we Wikipedians deal with problem sentences! :) I do have to point out a factual error, though. The second sentence needs to say: "Prior to assuming the presidency he was a businessman and television personality." Let's continue with this otherwise exemplary consensus-building discussion on the presumption that this necessary correction is going to be incorporated into the final text. Per the admonition at WP:TALKDONTREVERT about stonewalling, I'd like to restore Ad Orientem's edit, and, while I'm at it, include the needed factual correction and the agreed-upon change to the hat (as discussed). This can be done relatively quickly (let's say around this time tomorrow). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 22:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 00:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs to say, "prior to entering politics," as mention of now being a politician is important to some editors. Prior to entering politics, makes it clear he is a politician now. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Devirguilla's point is that Trump remained a businessman even after entering politics. The language of Version E is that, "Prior to entering politics he was a businessman...."  He was a businessman both prior to and after entering politics, so Version E is correct.  The more he got involved in politics, the less he was a businessman, and this can be (and is) clarified later in the lead and the BLP.  But, I would not object to "Prior to entering politics full time, he was a businessman...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know E is correct because it correctly identifies that he was a businessman prior to entering politics. But Devorguilla seems to be suggesting "Prior to assuming the presidency, he was a businessman, etc." in place of "Prior to entering politicis. . ." The mention of politics needs to be there because there are editors who insist on it. That is why Ad Orientum's edit is so excellent. It covers everything. I'm really directing my question at her, to see if it was a typo. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think about inserting "full time" per my previous comment?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point! Actually, I think we may all be correct here. The sentence can be interpreted as: "He was (once) a businessman. Then he entered politics." (Which would imply, he stopped being a businessman as a consequence of entering politics.) Or it can be read as: "Before entering politics, he was a businessman." (Which implies nothing about what he was between the time he entered politics in year 2000 and the time he became president.) Accordingly, I hasten to withdraw my objection to E as written. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

New lead
I'm sure there is now consensus to change the lead. I made a conservative change to look like this
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

This recent and more radically different version also has few objections so far and it could go back to that
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

I don't think anyone should revert back to the version with "incumbent" in the hatnote because there is consensus that these two are better, if you review the discussions and edit history. Siuenti (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The plan seems to be to wait on making changes right now per Ad Orientem. When the thread with his suggested sentence closes, it might be a good idea to let him make the change in the article. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

✅ per clear talk page consensus. In accord with this talk page discussion and the much referenced Current Consensus RfC, substantive changes to the lead should only be made after first securing consensus here or through an RfC if talk page consensus cannot be found within a reasonable period of time. Thank you to everyone who participated in this rather lengthy discussion. I also appreciate everyone's tolerance for my reluctance to move precipitously in this edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Absent some concrete objection overnight I believe there is a strong consensus in favor of the proposed change to the lead paragraph, and I will make the edit tomorrow. I also would not characterize the change as radical. Nothing is really being added other than incumbent, and nothing is being removed. We are just changing the order in which things are presented so that the item for which Trump is most notable will be named first in a stand alone sentence with the other items following. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that version but I believe the order has already been talked about and gained consensus, which may or may not have changed. It's in one of those links about Item 11. Siuenti (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like in order to make an improvement which has consensus, I have to wait for a particular admin to change the article to his preferred version. Hmm Siuenti (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly normal to give people plenty of time to comment, so they can't come back later and claim the change was made hastily.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Ad Orientem is delaying an improvement which has consensus so that people can't come back later and say his change was made hastily. Siuenti (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just his change and his preferred version. A lot of editors have endorsed it above, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK his and other people's preferred version. Why can't he make this smaller improvement which we have consensus for now, then change to his and other people's preferred version after people have had long enough to object to that larger change? Siuenti (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably because of this RFC which says to change the lead paragraph when the hatnote is changed. Anyway, it's no biggie, just a little more time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My smaller improvement does change that hatnote and the lead at the same time, which that thread thinks is a good idea. Maybe no biggie, but not being able to make an improvement so that an involved admin can more conveniently get to his preferred version is kinda hmmm. Siuenti (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New lead: the return
There is going to be a new lead which doesn't have "incumbent" in the hatnote but does have "current" (or maybe "incumbent") in the body. It could be a conservative change like (version Q) <-- not sure what letter we are at -->
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States.

or it could be a more radical noticeable change, "Version E" recently implemented but reverted
 * Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality.

Which of these is better? Do you strongly object to either of them and why? Is there something else you would much rather have? Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The latter is clearer, but that's version E as discussed above. Why a new thread? — JFG talk 00:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That thread is a bit messy. I'm trying to get clarity on if there is consensus for the bigger change over the smaller change, and if things should be left alone after that. Siuenti (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The latter version is Version E, it's preferable for a variety of reasons, so let's just be patient for a day or so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are two of the reasons for opposing the smaller change: MOS:PARAGRAPHS (also WP:BETTER) and sentence syntax (nonparallel modifiers). --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So being one sentence is bad, and non-parallel construction is bad. It could be tweaked a bit to fix those issues, would you still prefer the other one? Siuenti (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Version E says, "Trump is the 45th ... President... Prior to entering politics he was a ... television personality." Your version says, "Trump is a ... television personality ... and the 45th ... President..." Someone who first began reading the news on January 21, 2017, might reasonably wonder whether he might have become an American television personality ("person of importance or notoriety") as a consequence of becoming President. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it my version? I'm just trying to check whether version E has consensus over more modest changes, and see if we need to look for anything else. Anyway it seems that the first one can't be tweaked to answer that objection, so you would be a solid "for version E, against the other one" I believe. Siuenti (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to keep opening threads. Simply make your choice here as others have done. There's loads to choose from. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for more information than what people prefer out of a set. Siuenti (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What precisely is this information? Or is this simply more disruption? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are people happy with Version E or should we look for something else, if so what. Siuenti (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Post your question here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * People seem happy enough with it, so can we move on now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a pretty strong consensus supporting the recent (and current) edit to the lead (version E). If I didn't, I would not have made the edit. I am not questioning anyone's right to open a discussion on the wording of the lead but since we just had one, I am wondering what is the point of your question and its timing? If you disagreed it seems it would have been more helpful if you had voiced your disagreement before now. I'm not trying to bust on you, but this is an important article about a man who draws a lot of attention, good and bad, and keeping it stable is not an easy thing. That's why we are strongly discouraging any substantive editing of the lead w/o prior discussion and consensus. But on the other hand we don't want discussion ad nauseam. We have reached consensus after several days of discussion. Opening a new discussion on the same issue less than 15 minutes after the previous one was resolved, without a very compelling reason does not strike me as constructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is something I'd like to change but if there is consensus for this one being near optimal that's great, I'll leave it alone. Should people who have comments about the new lead post them at Talk:Donald_Trump or make a new thread? or keep quiet? Siuenti (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe blocked for persistent disruption. Comments like this posting multiple threads above, and even here and here and here and making this edit on the article here are not portents of good things to come. Neither is your question above. Any admins available? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not jump to accusations of disruptive editing. And for the record, I'm an admin. @ what change do you want to make? If I think it's worth discussing I'll let you know. Ditto if I think it's unlikely to go anywhere or should have been brought up earlier. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was brought up earlier but it was in a very messy discussion. I'd like to put "January 2017" somewhere, which would enable "current" to be removed and clarify the "temporal context" as it were. Siuenti (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you, it's in the infobox here. And you could have brought this up earlier. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I said I did bring it up earlier, but it was in a very messy discussion. Do you know what this article looks like when viewed on a mobile phone, out of interest? Siuenti (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it's redundant since that is in the info box on the side. Also "current" seems to have a better flow to it. IMO there is little likelihood of gaining consensus to reword the opening yet again to add that. This is not me telling you that you can't open the discussion. I am giving you my opinion as an experienced editor, I think it's a waste of time. But if you really want to go there, start another thread at the bottom with your proposal. Be aware however, that I will likely oppose it and I think it will get shot down fairly quickly. Again however, the choice is yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think there is consensus for something along the lines of this statement: "Some people have changes they would like to make, but the current lead came about as a result of arduous discussion and people are tired. Editors are encouraged to allow some time to pass before they propose further changes" Siuenti (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing there's overwhelming consensus for you to do this. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a solid consensus in favor of the new and current opening of the lead without any qualifier. If you want to pursue this you can open a new thread with your proposal. Again though, I don't see it going anywhere. and yes, I think we can close this thread. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing this thread?
Dear As a new consensus was finally reached,, except this one which was still active while I was closing (mmhh edit conflicts galore…) Would you mind letting me close this one too? In this way, future discussions can be clearly seen as originating after the new consensus wording #17 was implemented. You may create a new post-consensus thread if you feel the need. — JFG talk 21:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Section wlinks in lead
I plan on changing the Trump-specific wlinks in the lead so that they point to the appropriate sections of this article instead of to other articles. The sections of this article have hatnotes that can take interested readers to other articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your reasoning? That is not standard practice here. We usually have wikilinks throughout articles, including the leads. Barring a very good reason, one that should become part of the MoS and applied to all articles, I see no need to deviate from standard practice. Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that we shouldn't have wikilinks to other articles. We should have them in the lead and also throughout this article.  What I'm saying is that, if there's a particular Wikipedia article that is summarized in this article per WP:Summary style, and if the summary includes a hatnote linking to the main article that's being summarized, then the lead here ought to have a section wikilink instead of an article wikilink in that particular type of circumstance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! Okay, go for it. BTW, I don't know if this would interest you, but I have a different idea (not for use here) which I've tried in a couple of my essays. Take a look at this one: How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references" -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just took at look at that. That's a great idea that will work on ton of articles. I will keep it in mind going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scjessey. About this!  I hope the manual of style is edited accordingly, and I hereby request that you ping me if I can be of any help in that regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote that essay a long time ago, but have never tried to get that feature incorporated into our MoS. If there's a chance, then maybe we can move forward and give it a try. Do you think there's a chance? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably it's worth asking at an MOS talk page before making a formal proposal. I have no idea whether it would fly; some Wikipedians may say that it's already common sense 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time local consensus ought to be allowed to do what they think is appropriate.  So if it goes into the MOS then maybe it should be phrased in terms of what is "normally" done or "unless the section is tagged as deficient" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, did you see the discussion here in this section? Your edit apparently goes against the consensus here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Nth Foo of Footopia
Some editors of this page may be interested in the discussion at WikiProject Biography about nth and/or current world leaders. Siuenti (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Side Ventures: "The Question Arose"
From the "side ventures" section of this article:

"When Trump was elected president in November 2016, the question arose over how he would avoid conflicts of interest with his work in the White House and his business activities."

This strikes me as just slightly awkward, like the kind of thing you usually wouldn't see in an encyclopedia. I propose changing it to "questions arose." However, because this article is under all sorts of sanctions, I thought I'd run the idea up the flagpole here and see what people thing. Alephb (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right. That would be better. Feel free to make the edit. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC - LGBT rights
Should the Domestic Policy section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights? Please indicate 'support' or 'oppose' below. Please remember to use the discussion section for comments. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. This is not a social issue as it is being treated as such in the article at this time. This is an important civil rights issue that Donald Trump has spoken out on. There is widely cited reliable sourcing from the New York Times and WashPo, et al to support this. This is an issue that all presidents, from Reagan on through Obama have dealt with, and it is no different for Trump. Pretending this is a minor social issue, does not make it so. Trump's DOJ has removed the Obama DOJ's objection to the stay on the issue of transgender access to bathrooms in schools. That signals a policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is widely considered a social issue, which are not mutually exclusive with civil rights issue.  There is already a section titled "Social issues" which summarizes the article Social policy of Donald Trump.  That seems compliant with WP:Summary style, and it is already a lot more specific than the headers we use for his campaign political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Draft something if you wish, but I don't think there's enough notable content to warrant this. Most of the media reports are speculation, and like every issue he's back and forth about many/most details. It's mostly just buzz based on things he and his staff/friends have said; perhaps besides the school bathrooms issue, I don't find it significant enough. Also, this article is unwieldy enough; his Social Policy article should be sufficient. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - think not WP:DUE amount of his time spent on this area as he's more about immigration items and america first in the coverage.  Also, remember this is his Biography page, and if you mean policy as President then it should be in the article Presidency of Donald Trump. Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support compromise: The treatment of his position on LGBT rights should be expanded to a full paragraph (of no more than three sentences). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Political positions should be trimmed from the biography and expanded in the relevant articles such as, for LGBT issues, Social policy of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: LGBT rights are a social issue, not domestic. Prcc27 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Adding something just because its socially trendy L3X1 (distant write)  13:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) - At the moment, Donald Trump has expressed views about LGBTQ rights, but that is all. At this early stage of the Trump presidency, the administration has not involved itself in any LGBTQ-specific policy or legislation. If that changes, a time may come when the article will need exactly what SW3 has proposed. And with the various ghastly "religious freedom restoration" proposals, this may happen sooner that one might imagine. Please see Barack Obama for how a featured article handles the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless you plan to add a voting rights section, and a women's rights section, and a whole lot of others. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Scjessey. However, I support a section on LGBT rights within the presidency of Donald Trump article. Orser67 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No significant action, as of yet, has been initiated by President Trump regarding this area. I too believe we mostly have  his past views and much of the media reporting is speculation.  Also,  when and if there are significant actions taken by this president, then those actions would probably be best discussed in detail on the article about Trump's presidency with a mention of them in this article.Horst59 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion 1
Initial discussion Please see above at for initial comments made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As measured by total volume of (domestic or global) mainstream news reporting, US government officials' positions on LGBT rights is more significant and noteworthy than their positions on abortion rights, gun control, marijuana control, capital punishment, and waterboarding combined. Accordingly, information about an official's political position on LGBT rights is often significant and noteworthy enough for inclusion in his or her biography. In Trump's case, I would support a 2- or 3-sentence description of his position, given that his positions on other social topics merit a total of 5 sentences. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * agree with and would appreciate it if you would add "support," not 'support compromise,' As the paragraph is not written yet. This is an important, well-established civil rights issue that recent presidents have had to deal with, including Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, and Barack Obama. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the removal of the objection (transgender bathroom use), while it is causes egregious and unnecessary pain to transgender children, it's not a significant move in the grand scheme of things, since it is only the removal of an objection in a case concerning a particular state. In essence, it is more about state's rights than an LGBTQ policy. Not enough to promote the concept to a section yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It should go wherever other civil-rights issues go. If the only existing section that would apply is "Domestic policy", then put it there. The information should not be omitted simply because there is no current section called "Civil rights issues". To me this is a no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: The question of the RFC is "Should the Domestic Policy] section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights?" Where is the putative wording for the "LGBT rights" section? If someone creates such a cited subsection or paragraph, and posts it on this talk page, then I believe editors can accurately assess whether that proposed text, or something resembling it, should be in the article. Other than that, this RfC question is a little confusing because it seem to also be asking where a section on LGBT rights should be placed. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * mention of same-sex marriage, etc., is made in the domestic policy section. The RfC is attempting to establish if a sub-section title, LGBT rights, should be in the domestic policy section. The argument here seems to want to call it a social issue when clearly it is a civil rights issue. And there seems to be a desire to bury it there without allowing any attention to LGBT rights as civil rights, as there is, for example, on the Barack Obama page here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed early close
I closed this and the close has been challenged, both per WP:BRD. This begins the discussion phase, replacing the inappropriate and unnecessary complaint at WP:ANI.


 * Support close for reasons stated in my close statement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That the closure has been challenged by two other editors should be plenty enough to demonstrate that this was not the type of uncontroversial closure that is within the scope of an WP:NAC. And that alone pretty well ends the conversation right there. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Universities in infobox
I see that the alma mater parameter in the infobox is constantly being changed, either to include Fordham, or to include what kind of degree Trump has, or to include or not Wharton & simply say University of Pennsylvania. I know this is probably not very important, but shouldn't we have a consensus on a definitive version to avoid it being changed all the time? Maybe opening an RfC would be a good idea? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A clear consensus would go a long way toward stabilizing that field, and I agree it would be worthwhile. But an attempt should be made to get there in normal discussion before starting an RfC. I propose doing that right here, but I'll hold off !voting since (1) I'm not aware of any community-level discussion on this, and (2) I don't have a strong opinion. As you say, there are several questions complicating the issue: Should it show Fordham? Should it say UPenn, Wharton, or both (Wharton is the college at UPenn)? Should it show the BS degree from Wharton in parentheses? I suppose we would have to !vote each question separately and then assemble a composite consensus from the results. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could have separate discussions on including BS degree, which schools, etc., or we could present options like "Fordham + UPenn", "Fordham + Wharton", "Wharton + BS in parantheses", etc. But doing separate questions and assembling a composite consensus seems like a better idea. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I'll go ahead and set that up in separate subsections. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The University of Pennsylvania is made up of individual schools. It is correct to say, The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, since this is where he attended, and graduated from. There is no general admissions. There is only admissions to each individual school. He applied directly to Wharton and was accepted there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Show Fordham?
As Fordham University. !Vote Yes or No.
 * Yes Mandruss makes a good point about the definition.SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if we mention in parentheses that he transferred out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That will likely be read as a No, since that is excessive detail for this infobox field. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would mentioning Fordham at all be excessive since he transferred out? He didn't graduate from there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - gives no guidance on that. Merriam-Webster alma mater says: "a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated". According to them, then, Fordham could be included. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, and that's what this subsection will, with any luck, decide. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  18:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per dictionary definition of alma mater. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think it will be a bit crowded there? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (shrug) Yes + (Both or Combined) would be a large field value, sure. I'll switch to No if the No trend continues. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I changed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you still mean "Yes" for this part of the survey? Your comments make your current position unclear. (Just trying to simplify the eventual closer's job.) — JFG talk 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No – We are not writing Trump's CV in the infobox; the last school attended and graduated is enough. Details belong in the prose. — JFG talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. He didn't graduate. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't care. But, if it is included, then Wharton should include (B.S.) or (B.S. in Econ). Objective3000 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Show UPenn, Wharton, both, or combined as one link?
Wharton is the school at UPenn where Trump received his BS degree. !Vote: --
 * UPenn - University of Pennsylvania
 * Wharton - The Wharton School
 * Both - University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School)
 * Combined - Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania


 * Wharton. But at the moment, the info box seems to have the correct format. It mentions both. So if that is a choice, I'd keep it as is. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That will be read as a Both, not a Wharton. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But if most just want Wharton, I'm fine with that, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wharton. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wharton. People that care will know what Wharton is. Objective3000 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please re-check your !votes after revision of options. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both – And I don't think "The" is necessary. Just "University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School)" — JFG talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's a tie, i would also support Wharton only. — JFG talk 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Combined. Use the format decided upon by the authors of the Wikipedia article. Don't make stuff up. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wharton Wharton is well known as one of the foremost business schools. TFD (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Show BS in parentheses?
As (BS). !Vote Yes or No. Although this is sometimes made "small", this would not be done here per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph (this is an accessibility issue).
 * Yes, regardless of if we choose to mention that it was in economics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - per Emir of Wikipedia. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No – Exact degree reached is only interesting for academic people. Again, details belong in the prose. — JFG talk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't think most people know Wharton has undergrad degrees. And if Fordham is also mentioned, the assumption would be a grad degree. Prefer (B.S. in Econ) as the college makes a point of including this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for considering accessibility. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparent consensus
Participation has died down and there is apparent consensus to mention Wharton with "(BS Econ.)", no consensus to add Fordham. However I'm involved and I'd prefer someone else to formally close this thread and apply the consensus. — JFG talk 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False statements/controversies
Apparently the false statements mentioned in the lede are not addressed in the body as noted by this editor who tagged the edit. Unless someone has fixed that oversight. Perhaps it was there earlier and removed for some reason. But if it hasn't been taken care of, we need to come up with something for the body. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The body of the article does say, "Fact-checking organizations have denounced Trump for making a record number of false statements compared to other candidates." There are lots of footnotes plus more info about it.  The thing that's not in the body is the same thing that we seem to be on the verge of removing from the lead, according to the survey above, so I don't think the body has to be changed at this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC:Should the lead paragraph say in present tense or past tense that he is a businessman?
The lead paragraph currently says, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States. Prior to entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." Is the present language okay, saying that he was a businessman before entering politics?15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support present language about business background.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - this RfC is malformed. The question is posed in such a way to garner 'support' votes. It will not resolve anything, as it does not seem to take into account the actual discussion prior to the opening of the RfC. In addition, loading up the discussion section with RS to support OP's position, also forces the 'discussion' to begin way farther down, but first editors must wade through a wall of text. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To put it very mildly, it is erroneous to suggest that the only way to avoid a malformed RFC is to phrase it so that my !vote would be "oppose" instead of "support".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what my comment is saying. You have not worded this in a NEUTRAL way. Of course we should mention he was a businessman. But that's not what the prior discussion is really about. You should take this down. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The contention in the prior discussion was this: "He continues to own businesses and profit from them; therefore, he is a businessman. This is indisputable."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Abort - RfCs are for when discussion has broken down. We are still discussing it in an earlier thread, and the proposer of this RfC is (thus far) the only editor insisting on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the earlier thread, in which you mistakenly claim that consensus has already been reached. It has not.  And you completely failed to address a massive number of reliable sources.  Looks like a broken-down discussion to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Editors here are entitled to their opinions about whether Trump is still doing business deals. But we are not entitled to use wikivoice in the lead sentence of this BLP to contradict numerous reliable sources, including the following reliable sources and many more (emphasis added):
 * NPR, March 24, 2017: "President Trump, the former businessman who has never been shy about touting his negotiating skills, has for several weeks been involved in a high-profile negotiation and persuasion effort with members of his own party in an effort to pass the American Health Care Act."


 * People Magazine, December 23, 2016: "According to the 70-year-old former businessman, A-list celebrities are 'all wanting tix' to his inauguration, but he wants to keep things focused on 'the people.'"


 * New York Daily News, March 19, 2017: "After supporting President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, Patriots owner Robert Kraft is flying on Air Force One with the former businessman Sunday."


 * Chicago Tribune, January 17, 2017: "The site repeatedly referred to the former businessman as 'Mr. Trump,' not 'President Trump,' whereas Obama went by 'President Obama' on his administration's website."


 * CNBC, March 8, 2017: "A former businessman, Trump runs his closed-door meetings with CEOs as if they were a corporate board meeting, attendees said."


 * Fox News, February 11, 2017: "Trump, a former businessman and real estate magnate, is known for his deal-making, in fact having written a book in 1987 titled 'The Art of the Deal.'"


 * Politico, April 5, 2017: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday needled President Donald Trump to get tougher on trade with Beijing ahead of the former businessman's Mar-a-Lago meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping."


 * NBC, February 24, 2016: "Like Trump Collins is a former businessman."


 * UPI, March 29, 2017: "A pro-oil former businessman, Trump has sought to build support around the energy sector."


 * AOL News, January 21, 2017: "While the Women's March has said it's not explicitly anti-Trump, many participants in the District of Columbia event expressed feelings of fear, anger and bitterness around the former businessman's 2016 election victory and campaign rhetoric."


 * Roll Call, March 30, 2017: "The president met privately with Freedom Caucus members just hours before he and Ryan pulled the health care bill. But the former businessman, whom Spicer had deemed 'the closer,' was unable to strike a deal...."


 * USA Today, March 9, 2017: "The former businessman and his administration have kicked off 'a full-court press' to get skeptical conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups to a 'yes' on the health care plan that was released by House Republican leadership Monday night."

Here is the Obama BLP at the end of 2016, and the lead sentence was: "Barack Hussein Obama II (... born August 4, 1961) is an American politician and the 44th and current President of the United States." Do we include law professor, community organizer, U.S. Senator, state legislator, published author, or Nobel peace prize winner, in the lead sentence? No, none of it, nor do we put any of that in present tense later in the lead. It is true that Trump owns substantial assets, but so have many presidents, and yet we do not suggest in their lead paragraphs that they were doing business deals even while occupying the White House.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving wealth section
No, do not move the wealth section out of early life. It does discuss how he built his own fortune. You cannot keep making these unilateral changes. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it unilateral if I'm discussing it first here? The "wealth" subsection has 15 sentences.  Only the first of those 15 sentences has anything to do with his early life.  You seem to have some bias here, given that the "wealth" section was unilaterally put into the "early life" section today by another editor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh. . .'discussing it here,' no. You stated you had the intention of moving it and your reason for doing so. You did not start the discussion asking for comments. And btw, your RfC is malformed. Again. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did intend to implement it, but now I won't because you have raised an objection that completely ignores the fact that 14 of 15 sentences in this subsection are unrelated to the section in which it was unilaterally placed (without the slightest talk age discussion) earlier today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It shows how he grew his own wealth. It could be expanded, actually. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If he grows his own wealth while in his 50s and 60s, that has virtually nothing to do with his early life, and I think you must realize that. And you also must realize that another editor (not me) arranged this material unilaterally today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you should have mentioned that. You should have opened a thread that said something along those lines, "An editor has moved xyz. Thoughts?" But instead, you come along and declare your intention. If you are opposed to the other editor moving the material, first open a thread and mention the move, then ask for input. Should it move back where it was, in the real estate section, or stay? But revert him first. BRD. Still works. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am now inserting a subsection header, I hope this resolves any concerns that you may have. I also hereby ask you (in the specific language that you have said I should have used): an editor has moved the wealth material under a header that says "early life" even though almost all of it refers to years following early life. Thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LOl. I think we should move it back to where it was in the real estate section. Also, what about the personal taxes? They're actually now in the campaign section. What's left in the wealth section seems a bit confusing. He did object to the release of the 1995 return but that's not mentioned. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't in the real estate, it was in the personal life section. I would be fine if we either move it back to the personal life section, or instead put it at the end of the real estate section as you suggested, so I will implement the latter.  Incidentally, I don't mind including something about personal taxes in the wealth section, but stuff about the dispute over releasing tax returns is okay in the 2016 campaign section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now moved to the real estate section. I think some tax stuff in the wealth subsection is okay, but the controversy about release of returns really should remain in the campaign section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. That was really a campaign issue. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)