Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States/Archive 5

RFC: Should recent presidents be included?
What should be the scope of this article? This article has long suffered from WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV, and WP:BLP issues. Although most of the article is stable, the subsections on the current president and to a lesser extent the previous president are targets of nearly all edits. The vast majority of these edits are reverted as they are based on what one commentator or comedian called a president and are unlikely to stand the test of time. Should we change the scope of the article as follows:

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC). O3000 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A – Leave as is.
 * Option B – Remove the current president and move to List of nicknames of past presidents of the United States.
 * Option C – Remove the current president and previous president (e.g. Trump and Obama) and move.
 * Option D – Remove modern era presidents. Please specify where to draw the line.

Survey (Recentism)

 * A (scratch that, I mean B) - should be simplest way to keep down the name-calling.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ethical violation -- Throw out Markbassett's !vote and restore the status quo until this RFC resolves, or END this RFC. Markbassett removed the content that this RFC was presumably opened to address, and then !voted to keep the Trump-less version he created, which renders this RFC meaningless. I can't even fathom how this is a rational or ethical move, but if this version of the article sans Donald Trump nicknames is what they are voting on, that is NOT the intended scope of this RFC. This RFC relies on the existence of this Trump content in the article for other editors to decide what content should or should not remain in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cyphoidbomb Simply do not go there is a separate topic from do not list the last president(s). Get off the high horse, the removal of name-calling is not the RFC topic. Personal attacks done without ping to try and discard opposing input is not appropriate behaviour.  The deletion of a couple names at Trump is not the RFC topic of not listing president(s) at all.  The removal of slur phrases instead of nicknames has been an ongoing thing and I simply renewed what I saw as one recently in flux in a whole series of reverts in recent history.  Frankly, ONUS or OFFTOPIC seems saying entries need to be shown as nicknames instead of attacks, and *that* seems the ongoing consensus of deeds - or so I hope.   BLP guidance is towards show a little restraint and class where these could stand being restrained.  The sourcing seems a bit weak so BLPremove dictates to remove immediately seems almost in play too.   All of this is edits discussion and not the topic of this RFC, but it is POV and looks disreputably Tabloid.  I'd already mentioned in discussion below that the RFC is not enough, the article needs some guidelines about nicknames.  There are dozens of ugly names Trump or Obama has been called - and others before them.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural close - No disrespect to Objective3000, but I don't think the language in the opening question is framed as neutrally as it could be. While there might ultimately be some strong POV complaints, I think that stuff is better served in your !vote argument, rather than in your opening question, which could preload bias onto other editors. The WP:RECENTISM statement is basically a conclusion of fault established as fact. Just by dropping these links we're telling editors how they should think before they have a chance to think. And I'll also note that even the Survey and Discussion subsections have (Recentism) parentheticals. I don't ascribe any bad faith to Objective, but I don't think this RFC is the best shade of neutral, and I think it should probably be scrubbed, and the status quo replaced (even if temporarily) despite Markbassett's questionable changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RfC has nothing to do with the current Trump list or anything to do with the page as it stands. The RfC is in response to the constant edits that are reverted for obvious reasons and are not in the article. For example, Fuckface for Trump and racist slurs for Obama. Both receive highly derogative nicknames that are sourced to one person and not in common use. I’ve reverted a few dozen entries for both and expect we will always experience disruptive edits for recent presidents no matter what their brands. So, I don’t see a neutrality problem with the RfC statement. Of course MarkBassett should self-rvt their article edit as it is purely disruptive. O3000 (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, because this RfC is trying to decide what to do with all nicknames for current presidents, but if we are only concerned with omitting far-fetched nicknames like Fuckface and the racist ones for Obama, then we are basically just discussing how to deal with disruptive editing, which has always been easily remedied by quick reversions, and if need be, by page protection. I don't think any of the regulars have ever argued in earnest that Fuckface should be included. If we want to discuss what threshold is required for a nickname to be included (i.e. we have to demonstrate that the nickname was used at least twice by more than five mainstream sources or whatever), that's fine, but it doesn't make sense to me that we would be discussing the removal of blocks of content just because some cranky people, ignorant of Wikipedia principles, want to stick it to the current president. With the exception of these random ignorants, the list has remained remarkably stable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, a long-time editor did argue that fuckface von clownstick be added. The RfC suggests that we don't post ANY nicknames for recent presidents so we don't have to deal with the continuing recentism, BLP, NPOV issues. If the scope of the article is past presidents only, all this disruption would be obviated. Basically, this is a response to the suggestions that the article be AfD'd. I think the nicknames of past presidents is of use and wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because some folk can't resist adding churlish nonsense to the last two presidents.  O3000 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * May I please ask who that editor was or where I can find that discussion? I don't see it above. I don't think the gravity what's being changed is significant enough to toss any content. If we're worried about disruption, then we should protect the article. I did a quick tally of the questionable changes from August 1 to present and it's only about 13 instances over 3 months from 11 people.
 * +1 zinger for Reagan (Old Foot-in-the-Mouth) -
 * +1 zinger for Trump (The Great Divider) -
 * +1 zinger for Trump (The Troompa Loompa) -
 * -2 negative nicknames for Trump, +1 pro-Trump (Teflon Don) -
 * +2 quasi zingers for Trump (SNOTUS, Drumpf) -
 * +1 unknown for Trump (PresidentPAB) -
 * +1 pro Trump (God Empire Trump) -
 * +1 zinger for Trump (Cheeto-in-Chief) -
 * +1 pro Trump (God Empire Trump) Resubmission by same person -
 * -2 negative nicknames for Trump (Note: Texas IP) -
 * +1 zinger for Obama (The biggest Mistake America Ever Made!) -
 * General incompetence
 * -2 negative nicknames for Trump (Note: Texas IP, same person as above based on rough geolocation and argument in edit summary) -
 * -2 negative nicknames for Trump (Mark Bassett) -


 * Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't remember. It's spread beyond this article. The Cheetos nickname was taken to the article on Cheetos and the Humpty Dumpty nickname was taken to the Humpty Dumpty article. (Who wants to read an article about a nursery rhyme and find more politics?) My point is that the name calling by and for recent politicians has become nauseating and less than encyclopedic. (As an example, see this lengthy article). I'm suggesting that nicknames are informative from a historic standpoint. Trump is not yet a part of what we generally think of as history. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I favor a procedural close and agree with the comment above that this RfC is not framed in neutral fashion as is required, not just suggested. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * B and add a procedural rule that a term must be used by two original sources, not referring to each other, to constitute a nickname. The bestowment of a nickname can be thought of as a meatspace consensus. tsilb (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D.   BTW This is fatally mis-structured to favor "A" by dividing all of the "reduce it" votes between three choice since it is begin treated like a vote. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A 'do nothing' option is common and the closer can work that out. O3000 (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A. And raise the protection on the article to require registered accounts. And raise the standard of sourcing to ensure nicknames are sourced as being discussed as nicknames, not just examples of the nickname being used. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Recentism)

 * I'll suggest the page also needs to work out stating some guidelines for 'nick name' versus 'name-calling', or common use versus a LABEL.  After all, there is a WEIGHT for what are basically jokes or insults or POV or ethnic and racial slurs.   Insulting names for Presidents might rate an article on its own, they all had opponents after all.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With there being an open RFC on this very issue, and with you not having any consensus for this change, I'm unclear on how you can ethically justify your removal of this content, when the status quo has existed for years for these nicknames to appear in the article. Removing content you disagree with when we are actively discussing whether or not that content should remain seems like an EGREGIOUS ethical violation to me. Also, wait, you removed all of the Donald Trump shit, then voted in favor of "Leave as is"? What the fuck? The "Leave as is" vote presumably refers to the version of the article before you culled it of Trump criticism. So your !Vote then just refers to a list without critical nicknames of Trump? If so, then why are we even having this RFC? To decide whether or not "No drama Obama" is suitable for inclusion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cyphoidbomb I'd say thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of my entry typo, but you were too rude and doing personal attacks the first three times before you got to it so it's not a lot left for gratitude. Correction : B - (Remove the current president and move to List of nicknames of past presidents of the United States), should be the simplest way to reduce the name-calling.  And I repeat my discussion remark of there should also be guidelines about 'nicknames, not name-calling'.  People can (and have) brought up ones for Obama that had weight and are known -- and I think the list should not have 'Nobama', 'Cheatin Obama', 'Deporter in chief' or the article would wind up recapturing the whole list of dozens of slurs such as Quora has.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a separate discussion about whether or not pejoratives are nicknames, feel free to open a discussion about that. Until that discussion resolves, the status quo remains. There has previously been a discussion about these entries, and removal did not appear to be the consensus. Your edit, thus, was not consistent with consensus. And yes, I absolutely consider the pejoratives inherent to this discussion, since without the pejoratives, there would be no reason to have this discussion. Nobody has objected to 45 or The Donald. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm new to this, so please correct me if I'm posting this in an incorrect format. It seems obvious the problem is specifically centered around name-calling regarding the current president and the immediate previous president. Reading back through this talk page, similar issues were being discussed during Obama's term (See Nobama/Nobummer discussion). Those nicknames were removed as they were argued to be "recentism" or "presentism". The nicknames were arguably rude, highly biased, and unlikely to stand the test of time. My opinion is that you have to either follow that same rule in regards to President Trump (See conspiracy-theorist-in-chief, snowflake, etc..), or you have to abandon nicknames for these two Presidents entirely until the vitriolic opinions about them both have died down. As it stands, it is clear that biased and rude nicknames (even from published media sources) are being removed in regards to Obama, but they're being kept in regards to Trump. if you are going to allow pejorative nicknames regarding Donald Trump by arbitrarily declaring those names as "widely accepted" just because there's a few quotes from the likes of Van Jones or Stephen Colbert using those names, then you have to similarly accept the pejorative nicknames for Obama (such as "Divider-in-Chief")... I personally disagree with allowing them at all because opinions are too strong right now and it skirts dangerously close to revisionist history. If you can't be fair about it, then it's best to just avoid the two most recent presidents entirely and wait to see which names truly stand the test of time. Coyote D (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been watching this page for years, what you are suggesting has no validity IMO. You are welcome to point out specific examples here. But, general criticisms of editor behavior without evidence are simply not useful. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nicknames generated from late night talk show hosts or radio talk show hosts should not be included, because they don't typically meet the standard of academic critique; they are entertainers. Please also note that attempts to add Cheetoh and Oompa Loompa have all been reverted. But nicknames used commonly by mainstream media sources, newspapers, magazines, news outlets, biographers from major publishing houses, should be fair game just like any analysis or critique. The recent examples of "divider-in-chief" weren't very strongly sourced. One was a piece written by someone who didn't bother to ask for a byline, the other attributed the nickname to a lawmaker. So they weren't terribly convincing. Also, the "divider-in-chief" label has also been applied to Trump in the same way that most presidents get labeled "King Obama" or King Trump" when someone wants to kvetch about executive orders. I think that pejorative nicknames are absolutely fine if they can be amply sourced and demonstrate common usage. Ridicule is one reason why nicknames get applied to people, and presidents should not be absent of criticism from people who analyze world events. I also don't like the idea of Wikipedia editors deciding what constitutes a pejorative nickname. For instance, I consider Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief to be only a slight dig, since it describes something that you can observe him doing. Snowflake is less so, but who's making the determination? Also does Wikipedia practice censorship? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Coyote D. I agree the article kept out insults, but think it’s not just a recentism Thing. Insults were also done back when, and Old Presidential insults so far have been largely kept out. The unpopular Mr. Lincoln, yes Lincoln was actually hated when President, had well known name-callings such as ‘the original gorilla’, ‘Yahoo’ and ‘Tyrant’.  Washington was called “Mutton Head” and “His Pomposity”.  The Best Presidential Insult Nicknames are perhaps a different article though - I think it best to decide they’re just not nicknames.  Not-having-the-current-one (or two) would eliminate recentism and reduce POV by those at least, but I’m thinking it needs more. Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "I agree the article kept out insults, but think it’s not just a recentism Thing." What does that mean, exactly? I find it entirely incomprehensible. I'm not trying to make fun of you, but if you are arguing in an RfC, your points have to be clear and intelligible. "Old Presidential insults so far have been largely kept out." You mean like "His Rotundity", "Jackass", "General Mum", "His Accidency", "Bachelor President", "Ten Cent Jimmy", "Rutherfraud", "His Fraudulency", "Uncle Jumbo", "Human Iceberg", "Little Ben", "That Man", "Bullshit Johnson", "Lightbulb Johnson", "Tricky Dick", "Teflon President", "Slick Willie"? Clearly you're wrong about how often derogatory nicknames are present in this list. And from what I interpret from your responses, you seem to be making an emotional argument that pejorative nicknames shouldn't be included without clarifying why they should not be included. And you haven't actually addressed whether or not pejoratives constitute nicknames. And then on the B-side of your argument, you say some stuff and toss out the buzz word "recentism", without addressing what scale of problem you think would be fixed by cutting the nicknames for the current or last president. The level of irritation that this article gets from people who want to stick it to the current president is ridiculously minimal considering how juicy of a subject area it is. What did I tally above? 13 instances over 3 months? You're supporting that we censor an article over that minor disruption? Ridiculous. Page protection is the way to go if this is a real hot-button issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has largely kept out insults means just that. There seems a de facto consensus to largely not include name-calling.  Almost none of the name-calling insults seem to be here, only a small portion of the list is negative, and the worst ones seem absent.  Of the 45 Presidents, only about 12 above are shown to have anything negative.  Of the the mmm about 150 references, above only 17 negative are shown, just about 10% of the total.  Those are no longer BLP or RECENTISM concerns, so unless you feel LABEL is being used, it seems a general aversion exists and I think it’s OFFTOPIC, that a name-calling is not a nickname.  Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The is simply false. Whether a nickname is positive or negative in nature is irrelevant for our purposes. It has to be a name that is widespread and stands the test of time. Having said that, history is written by the winners and teachers tend to focus on the positive in the country in which they teach. So yes, history, as written, is biased and positive names are more likely to be widespread and stand the test of time. As an encyclopedia, we will reflect that bias. Now, if you can find historians documenting negative names that were widespread at the time and lasted a significant period, I don't see a problem adding them and believe there are some in the list. O3000 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "There seems a de facto consensus to largely not include name-calling." Yeah, no. Your argument assumes that the lack (minus) of pejorative nicknames implies a conscious decision (positive) to omit pejorative nicknames, when that simply can't be established. Not a strong position to argue from the negative. "He didn't say he was innocent, so he must be guilty!" "There was no evidence of arson, so he must have started the fire!" There are numerous possibilities for why there aren't pejorative nicknames for everybody including: Nobody bothered to add them, they were difficult to source, a vandal removed them, or maybe Lyndon Johnson was just disliked more than Eisenhower was, etc. But to extrapolate a community preference based on the lack or inconsistent presentation of content is not logically sound. "Those are no longer BLP or RECENTISM concerns" This statement is a conclusion based on the false premise that pejorative nicknames of current presidents are problematic for BLP or RECENTISM concerns, which has not been established as fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A then B and D. Once a President (even if for a day), always a President.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If nicknames of previous men who have been elected by the electoral college are on the page, then nicknames of Donald Trump should be as well. If the nicknames of previous presidents are based off their real names (eg. "Teddy" for Theodore Roosevelt) then the same should be done for president Donald Trump. Names such as racist, misogynist, etc. should not be applied unless the theme for the nicknames is "derogatory nicknames of presidents." Learning Mind (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Learning Mind
 * Just to clarify, there are already derogatory nicknames in the list. The threshold thus far has been "common usage", with an emphasis on what mainstream publications say, rather than people on message boards. So racist and misogynistic nicknames are never likely to be included, since no mainstream source would ever use such names. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, common ones seem largely kept out. That Obama’s derogatory items are removed yet Trump’s derogatory names are kept seems inconsistent, causing folks to add Obama ones or complain about biased appearance.  But common historical name-calling is largely not included, except a few mild ones.  (“Bachelor President” doesn’t seem much, and “Rotundity” seems milder than “hideous hermaphrodite”.  Names for Lincoln and Washington are entirely absent).  The scope of article seems to need clarification.  Excluding current President would remove the offending material issue, and Recentism issue - or including Obama item(s) would reduce the appearance of bias.  I’d prefer just ‘not name-calling’ as a classier choice for Scope clarification. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem hung up on a couple of things:
 * "Largely kept out" is meaningless in determining what goes in, for reasons that I've already tried to clarify for you. Since you don't seem receptive or don't understand, very simply, there is no consensus for the omission of pejorative nicknames. If you want to work toward establishing a consensus, feel free to do that in a different discussion.
 * So far, for years, the criteria for the inclusion of a nickname in this list is that the submitter has to demonstrate the nickname was in common usage at the time of the presidency or shortly thereafter. This isn't something I made up, that phrasing is from the list article's lede.
 * If you have a problem with the balance of pejoratives between Obama and Trump, or for other presidents, and if you think you can demonstrate common usage, feel free to open a new discussion about that.
 * Excluding current President would remove the offending material issue, and Recentism issue You keep saying that there is a problem without articulating what you perceive the actual problem is, or proving that there is, in fact, a problem, or demonstrating the scope of it. You're certainly not arguing from experience editing this list, so it's a bit confusing what you're basing your opinion on. You are then proposing that the only solution to this unproven problem, is to remove content, when so far most content even remotely considered problematic has already been removed through normal editing processes. What are we really talking about here, "Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief"? Is that what all of this back-and-forth is about?
 * Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B or D. We can say a president is fair game after they die, just to draw the line somewhere.  A is virtually daring editors to do the kind of "look what i can get away with on Wikipedia" POV pushing that should be discouraged everywhere its found.  Bonewah (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether editors are being dared or not, the bulk of the POV nicknames have been kept out by editors who understand basic Wikipedia standards and who can watchdog appropriately. Part of why I find this RfC problematic is that it non-neutrally asserts the existence of a problem in need of solution, when the solution has always been to keep out the glaringly problematic POV nicknames through normal editing integrity, and by asking contributors to demonstrate common usage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You continue to insist that the RfC is non-neutral when the originator (me) hasn't even !voted since I have no strong opinion. The RfC was created to address a concern voiced by Trekker and DrMies. Incidentally, we have one editor that says it's non-neutral as it favors no change and another says it favors a change. I'd say that suggests it's neutral. 16:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
 * I have a high regard for your work here, and I am not suggesting that you personally are pushing a bias, but I still (respectfully) disagree with the premise and wording of the RfC. I bear some fault, because I encouraged you to open it, erroneously thinking it would be addressing a different topic, like whether pejoratives were suitable for inclusion. However, that was a major reading comprehension failure on my part and I'll have to live with that embarrassment. But please know that my objection is not a criticism of you personally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob. And, pejoratives should obviously be included when in common usage. I don't think most people realize how heavily the early presidents, including Washington, were attacked during their time as we are taught in grade school to revere them. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Option C, possibly B or D, but NOT A Not enough time has passed for a solid nickname for Trump or Obama. We should wait a little while until Obama's legacy is settled, and at least a few years after Trump isn't in the White House. HAL 333  00:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Deceased presidents only
I'm sorry, but I can't take the time to read through all the comments. We could save a lot of time by simply moving the article to a new one, List of nicknames for deceased Presidents of the United States. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I'm not a fan of the structure or framing of the current RFC but this seems to be the only way to avoid BLP issues. And it would have to be clear that recently deceased presidents were to be avoided as well. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the only way to avoid BLP issues. The other way to avoid BLP issues is through normal editing practices, which requires common usage and ample sourcing as the threshold for the inclusion of a nickname. If that's not good enough, then long-term semi-protection, but even that seems extreme. Seriously, the "problem" that this RFC attempts to address is not as big as it seems. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I'm not familiar enough with the long-term background of this dispute to know if this has or hasn't worked in the past. While admitting I haven't been around the 'pedia at all frequently for a long time, historically your suggestion has often proven very difficult to implement in practice. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Common Usage"
Let's come up with a better way to define this list. There are far too many nicknames here that are too obscure to fall under the misleading characterization of "in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter".

My attempt to add the qualifier "or circulated in media" was deemed too broad. My attempt to simply remove the word "common" was also rejected without explanation.

I am not a regular contributor, so please forgive my procedural illiteracy, but it seems adjusting the characterization would settle much of the controversy surrounding specific contributions.

Any suggestions? 2601:445:37F:8A10:15C2:192E:EF1D:B373 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to explain why you think some items should be removed as opposed to attempting to greatly broaden the purpose of the article. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since content requires attribution to reliable sources, the reliable sources are the gauge for what is in common usage, i.e. the media's usage is the gauge. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, so given that media usage does not necessarily mirror "common usage" as the phrase is understood, the article remains misleading. Why are you opposed to adding something in the description that makes the gauge clear? This is not an attempt to "greatly broaden the purpose of the article", it's an attempt to define it more accurately as it currently stands. It seems plausible that someone could get the impression that significant segments of the population are or were familiar with and frequently use(d) all of the nicknames on this list when that simply isn't the case. 2601:445:37F:8A10:EC3E:38CF:189C:6BAE (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, your the first person that I can remember who has ever expressed that there could possibly be a confusion between common usage and common usage by reliable sources like the media, or historians, or scholars. I don't think the threat to confusion is as great as your suggesting. Most people who have removed nicknames typically have done so because of some political motivation, not because of confusion as to what "common usage" has meant. I'm not saying that describes you, but so far I haven't seen a real need to rejigger the scope of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not looking to "rejigger" anything. The lede could be improved to better characterize the collection of names in the list. It hardly seems relevant that this has never been mentioned before, but I would argue that the confusion is implicit in many of the specific attempts to add or remove certain items from the list. "Barry", for example, is far more familiar to the general public than "No Drama Obama". The fact that some of these nicknames that may be trendy among journalists are practically never uttered in ordinary conversations is the element of the article that I take issue with, and the broad definition "in common usage" does not accurately characterize a list that includes nicknames as ubiquitous as "Honest Abe" and "Dubya" and as obscure and cumbersome as "The Napoleon of Protection". Many of these nicknames are not even relevant enough to warrant a single mention on their respective Presidents' articles! To piggyback off of your thought, perhaps the lede could be phrased as "in common usage as identified by trusted journalists, historians, or scholars". 2601:445:37F:8A10:28E5:96DE:C5CF:6C9E (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In common usage means common in reliable sources. Everything in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm unable to find any reliable sources that verify your definition of "in common usage". I'm in total agreement with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing; I'm not attempting to add any nicknames that aren't properly sourced nor remove any that are. So there's no need to dismissively point to the rulebook and ignore my entire argument. In common usage does not, in fact, mean common in reliable sources. Wikipedia policy does not define the English language. In common usage means commonly used. Say I was on a flight from Australia to the US, and the person sitting next to me had never been and was completely unfamiliar with the culture and politics. If that person were to ask me, "do you have any nicknames for your Presidents?" And I were to say, "oh yeah, [X] is/was a commonly used nickname for President [Y]," without mentioning the fact that this visitor was unlikely to ever hear this nickname or encounter anybody that recognized it outside of a handful of journalists, that person would feel deceived by my omission and would be unlikely to trust me again in the future. The lede does not properly communicate the scope of the article in a way that a casual reader would understand. Why can't we try and improve it? 2601:445:37F:8A10:EDB0:26CE:E72A:DC97 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, you can find some hints to the problem with this article in the discussions above. Basically, I only see a purpose of this article as a historical review. The nicknames of past presidents have some historical value. I’d be happy to see current presidents omitted. So, for past presidents, we look at historical sources, which provide a better idea of what nicknames had some staying power. See WP:10YT. For the current and even previous presidents, we’re guessing at historical significance. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think removing current and recent presidents from the list is definitely a good start. The difficulty seems to be in determining where to draw the line, but you can add my vote to the "remove current and recent presidents" camp.68.47.46.49 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, this new IP appears to be the same user as the IPv6 above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same user. I have no idea why or how it changed. 2601:445:37F:8A10:9D97:EB7:5B29:B8D8 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Except if you are not using a static IP, good idea to register. O3000 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Orange Man
Hey there, I'm not convinced that "Orange Man" is a valid addition for a Trump nickname, as it doesn't meet the common usage threshold that we usually observe. I see a few sites attempting to embrace the meme and some passing efforts to describe him as that, but I don't think it qualifies as a nickname that is in wide usage by the press. This could change, but presently I don't think it qualifies. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's okay. "Orange Man" seems to be in more common use than some of the others listed here, but we can re-evaluate this and other nicknames in the future. There is no deadline seems to apply here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we've typically gone by editorial content like this. Seems that if the the main reporting arm of a publication is using it as a descriptor, that's one thing, but editorials seems like different territory. But I may have to chew on that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We certainly allow negatives. But, as well as being commonly used; they really ought to reflect on performance or some other long lasting characteristic. He may give silly nicknames (constantly) to others. But, that doesn't mean that we should indulge. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, we can re-evaluate these nicknames later and see which ones have staying power. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * would this Guardian article qualify as a "mainstream reliable source"? feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so because in that context, "orange man" is being used as a description rather than a nickname. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion here has so far required that the nickname should be in common usage. So one mainstream source probably wouldn't demonstrate common usage, and nicknames published at random blogs or fringe sources would not qualify, since we typically don't care what random netizens think. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack the Zipper
I heard this was a nickname of JFK (in reference to his promiscuity I presume) Worth adding? VenomousConcept (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, no disrespect intended, but the scope of the article seems to want nicknames that were in common usage at the time the subject was president or shortly thereafter. So I don't think that it fits here. Your contribution is appreciated, though. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-thinking this, particularly after forgetting briefly that Kennedy was assassinated during his presidency, if you can demonstrate that the term was in common usage shortly after he died, I think that'd be fair game. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden
Hi there, re: this, Biden, as far as I can tell, is not the president of the United States. He's the *next* president of the United States, which suggests that his addition is months premature. (Especially considering the news that the current lad plans to fight tooth-and-nail). Further, if the scope of this article is for nicknames used while in office or shortly thereafter, (see lede), these nicknames would not yet apply, as Biden has not yet assumed the throne or desk or whatever it's called. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly. I think we would be better off not including current or immediately prior POTUS. Certainly not the future. O3000 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Obummer revisited
Hi there, re: this submission, the threshold for inclusion of a nickname for a president is that the submitter can demonstrate that the nickname was in common usage at the time of the presidency or shortly thereafter. Since we don't care what nicknames common people have for someone (just imagine the awful names that racists would call Obama), there has always been a requirement that the nickname was widely used by the media or other reliable sources, not by internet cranks in discussion forums or comment threads or on social media. So if you want to argue for the inclusion of Obummer, you will need to demonstrate that the media and other reliable sources used that nickname widely. And no, acknowledging its existence is not the same thing as using it to describe the president. This seems less like the author is calling Obama "Obummer", and is instead acknowledging the name used by others, and a single WaPo opinion piece doesn't demonstrate wide usage. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, "O'Bummer" was widely used by his detractors both left- and right-wing. Jello of Dead Kennedys fame wrote an entire song about him called Barackstar O'Bummer, The Atlantic felt the need to include it in an article dedicated to such a topic, a 2009 Politico article here uses it as its own headline, NJ.com article headline here, CBS News uses it in headline from 2014, and an opinion article by The Washington Post derides him to humorous effect right here. I fail to see how any of this doesn't push the "O'Bummer" nickname into notability, I'll be adding this back into the article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be clear about one thing: the threshold for inclusion at this list article for as long as I've been here, is that the submitter needs to demonstrate A) that the nickname was in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter. B) Common usage has always mean usage by media, not by commonfolk. So:
 * Jello Biafra is not the media any more than Joe Average in the Fox News comment section is. (A cultural icon, yes, but media? No.)
 * Your inclusion of this CBS article is a clear misinterpretation of "O'bummer", since they are describing a troubling reality that Obama has to face, vs. calling him a bummer president. Hopefully you will be kind enough to acknowledge that a nickname has to be used to describe a person, right?
 * You are misinterpreting the NJ.com headline, which is describing a failed school naming as a bummer to Obama, it is not describing the president as a bummer.
 * The Atlantic writer is analysing the various nicknames she's heard for Obama, but is not calling Obama an O'bummer.
 * And Politico used the pun before Obama was even sworn in, so that doesn't meet the "that were in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter" qualification.
 * So far every time this Obummer thing comes up people somehow pick poor sources over and over and/or woefully misinterpret what the sources are actually saying. And based on the above, no, you have not satisfied that this was a nickname in common usage by the media at the time Obama was present or shortly thereafter. So how do you want to proceed here, since you have no consensus for inclusion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This makes absolutely no sense, why are we putting restrictions on what sources may be used to prevent documentation of something seemingly every editor who has discussed this issue is plainly aware of? If a credible media outlet says this is what people are calling the president, are we not able to document that within an article concerning what people call the president? Was it not in "common usage" if the general public had a name they would call a president by, but the general media wouldn't?
 * Quite frankly, of course not accusing you of such, this seems to be a roundabout way of simply avoiding giving Obama a blemishing nickname. "O'Bummer" was what he was called by detractors during his presidency, Wikipedia not including that information is a hinderance to the knowledge of its readership. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for any content, we absolutely have restrictions on what sources may be used, as dictated by WP:RS. We want mainstream sources with clear editorial oversight. As it pertains to the topic of presidential nicknames, it certainly wouldn't be appropriate for us to use the litany of pejorative nicknames that late night television hosts have for Trump, for instance, so why would it be appropriate to include what Jello Biafra or Ted Nugent had to say about Obama? (I made up the Nugent thing, but I'm sure he didn't have anything positive to say...) I'm not making a statement of fact that O'Bummer was not in common usage, my position is that nobody has yet made a compelling argument that this was in common usage, and that's why I pointed out the problems I found with the sources you provided. But the bar for inclusion has always been the same. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These current qualifications don't add up for me, I don't see how Politico is disqualified for being a few weeks before Obama was inaugurated. Okay, it was ever so slightly before he actually became president, if so, why is "The Donald" there for Trump, if both sources provided are before he became president and the very nickname relates to a time before he ever was president to begin with? These qualifications seem to contradict preexisting information on the article, besides that, I don't very much like the article not clarifying the qualifications more outright. The general reader should be clued as to what qualifies as "common usage" for the article's standards. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add "The Donald", so I couldn't answer that definitively. If the nickname was also used during his presidency, and I imagine it was, it would be fair game. Contrarily, nobody was every able to prove that "Barry" was commonly used during Obama's administration, which is why it's not there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Richard Nixon
As an variant to Tricky Dick I suggest Tricky Dickie (see Canberra Times Apr. 19, 1978; http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article110893027) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.138.146 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump often called “Cult 45”
I’ve often heard this, and it would be a 2-word edit in the line that already mentions his “45” related nicknames. Kborchelt (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's in relation to his followers and not Trump himself. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 06:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Turning into cnn
Why is Brandon not a nickname for Joe Biden ? 2001:1970:5041:F900:E13C:8C4D:470A:B288 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this article has to do with CNN. Brandon is not a nickname for Joe Biden because it is not described as such by reliable sources and is undue for inclusion. It's not an independent "nickname" for him, outside of the chant Let's Go Brandon, which has its own article. In other words, you can't divorce the appellation from the chant. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hyperlink error?
The hyperlink to 2020 United States presidential election redirects to the page for '2020 election' rather than the actual page for the presidential election. I assume that's a mistake, but if not, why? 85.255.232.114 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Either an error or vandalism. I corrected it. Thank you for alerting me. Dimadick (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Add mention of Conotocaurious and Town Destroyer to George Washington
I can't make the edit because the page is semi-protected, I think. The backstory on "Conotocaurious" is fairly scandalous, and I'm in doubt IndianCounty.com is particularly reputable.

However, Washington DID refer to himself as "Conotocaurious" in a letter he wrote to Andrew Montour dated October 10, 1755. Is on MountVernon's page, don't have the link handy. Gotta go oorder a new keyboad. This thing is orrible!

(as IndianCounty.com reports): George Washington describes the killing of three Mingo Indians on the south bank of the Potomac River as murder, and white settlers perpetrating “villainy” and “mischief.”  That was in 1769. Just 10 years after this letter to Armstrong—in 1779—he instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. He said, “lay waste all the settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.” In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not to “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.” After a defeat, Washington’s troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois from the hips down to make boot tops or leggings. Those who survived called the first president, “Town Destroyer.” Within a five-year period, 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed. They gave his grandad the same nickname, many years before. (and to be fair, even the Canadians were skinning / boiling Native Americans alive. It was part of how we "civilized" the "savages".)

sources: [] [

This was already mentioned in Town Destroyer

Know Einstein (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm actually suggesting this, but would "Brandon" qualify as one of Biden's nicknames?
For those who aren't aware, the hashtag "#ThankYouBrandon" is trending on social media right now, which itself is in response to "Let's go Brandon", which originates from a mishearing of "F*** Joe Biden" from a crowd chant at a NASCAR event (Brandon Brown was one of the drivers). At this point, it seems Biden's detractors have latched on to "Let's go Brandon" just as much as his supporters are now reclaiming it and referring to him as Brandon, albeit in an ironic way. tl;dr - given there have been numerous articles written on this phrase and the name itself is now being used to refer to Biden, is this sufficient qualification to make this article? 2600:1017:B124:2EE8:6419:F859:86B3:5DF0 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. The subject is already well-covered in Let's Go Brandon. You can't really divorce the epithet from the slogan. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 02:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dog help me for saying this, but I think 2600:1017:B124:2EE8:6419:F859:86B3:5DF0 might have raised a viable argument for the inclusion of “Brandon” as a legitimate nickname of President Biden. While I certainly don’t support the impetus and subsequent genesis of this nickname, it bears noting that nearly every President in this list has historically verifiable nicknames where the public and press seemed to have no difficulty in slightest with, as you decree, “[one] can’t really divorce the epithet from the slogan.” Quite on the contrary, there is documented evidence of many former Presidents - both in office and out - turning good nicknames into albatrosses they would carry to the end of their days, and likewise there are exemplary incidents throughout the history of The United States where Presidents (or their communicatIons director, or their supporters, friends, family, publishers of favorable news, &c. &c.) were able to turn names of harm to names to majesty.

Though now defunct, dead in the proverbial internet firmament four years and counting, I proudly state a particular bias when I declare The Awl the ne plus ultra in journalistic integrity, even in death. I should think it crosses the standard of reference essential to maintaining the Wiki world as The World’s Encyclopedia.

AlexEng, as the seniormost wikipedian in this conversation, I respectfully offer this one link that in my most humble opinion is a valid counterpoint to your base assertion that “[one] can't really divorce the epithet from the slogan.”

At your leisure, of course, peruse following article and take note of those names found suitable for publication on the dearly departed Awl, and consider the reasons, if any are known or to be found elsewhere, far deeper in this talk section than I am prepared to venture this EST evening.

https://www.theawl.com/2016/09/the-best-presidential-insult-nicknames/

This list of former Presidents begs to differ, and furthermore it offers many more nicknames - kind and unkind, in roughly equal measure - that are missing from this wiki article. An optional though recommended Googling, Bing’in, or DuckDuckGoGoGone, of the phrase “ bad presidential nicknames that turned good,” while inarguably lacking in eloquence of both search term and the results provided, I hope will provide an acceptable demonstration of the bald folly of your blanket statement.

Bottom line: for a brief moment in time the phrase “let’s go Brandon” held a certain sway with a certain “type.” That is, until an opposing “type” made the brash but not unprecedented move to turn the tables and proudly take ownership of the once reviled name, now a sigil for the Left, a vivid and visceral demonstration of how word can be taken and redefined in an instant.

Were I born thirty years earlier than I was, I would be shocked, pained, insulted, my personhood negated to be called by the simple yet multifaceted pejorative “queer” by those possessed by an ineffable need to make others similar to myself feel “less than” simply for the crime of being. Time changes many things, not least the meanings and interpretations of words, and though many suffered so that I may call *myself* queer as loudly and proudly as I care, it is through the action of this group, the simple declaration “this word is ours now” that changed “queer” from simply a slightly more polite way of calling someone “faggot” - and therefore I close my lengthy retort in kind, however my argument in favor contains not only a real world example, albeit in a vastly different time and context, but I believe more than adequately illustrates why “2600:1017:B124:2EE8:6419:F859:86B3:5DF0” brings up a valid contestant for addition to this entry. See:

Left thinking people got fed up with that “let’s go Brandon” nonsense peddled by the Right (nonsense which itself boils down to “tee-hee, we’re secretly swearing at the president but not really using no cuss words and def’nitly not really saying them at the president - ain’t we a clever bunch?”) and the Left said - pardon my French - F that S with a baseball bat. And then they took the name Brandon and by word of mouth and internet meme and keychain and T-shirt and bumper sticker these free thinkers let it be known to all that it is now a term of affection, stripped of the power of harm it so briefly held. It turns out, sir, that it’s really not that hard to divorce the epithet from the slogan *when the epithet ceases to be.”

Respectfully submitted, The Rocket Salad 9000. Trs9k (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note a moderately important sentence fragment missing from the paragraph preceding the link to The Awl - my statement should conclude that one should not only ponder what nicknames are considered worthy of entry to Wikipedia, but perhaps it is just as important to question why certain others were disqualified for entry.

I make no supposition of the motivation of editors I do not and could not ever know. Suggestions, however, are fair game, though referring to the following thoughts as conjecture would not be unwarranted nor contested.

Perhaps due to unawareness, perhaps due to a sense of propriety, or perhaps I should dare suggest political motivation - though only six of the listed gentlemen are alive today and therefore able to suffer the very real effects rendered upon them by slings and arrows of slanderous speech, the influence and historical import of nearly each and every one of the forty others listed (William Henry Harrison being one possible exception, however this comment is only in reference to his exceptionally brief time in office) bears witness to a nearly unbroken chain of skullduggery and graft (Carter being inarguably the only “good person” to serve, and to anyone alive with one good eye and a working sense of hindsight it should be apparent how cruelly he was rewarded by his ostensible peers for his unwavering and frank honesty and, forgive me if you disagree, his saintly pureness of heart in all his works before, during, and after his Presidential service - but that’s an argument for another day on another page.) If you’ll kindly forgive that digression - Habitat for Humanity veteran here, it has a way of getting into you in a particularly passionate fashion — and again, I digress! I hope that the first third or so of this additional comment will be taken as constructively as it was intended, and thank you to all who suffered/humored the remainder. Big ups to admins and editors like AlexEng (asked respectfully and not in jest, as I feel we wikipedians are of “a particular type,” is your user name a play on the They Might Be Giants song title “Ana Ng?” “No, my name is Alex and I am an Engineer” is a perfectly valid response and again I stressfully insist I mean this question in a spirit of camaraderie, hoping simply to lighten the mood of what has surely be an absolutely joyless read for all but myself and that guy made of numbers.

Thank you once again for your kind attention, trs9k Trs9k (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Link headers to their respective presidents?
Feel like this is a no-brainer but wasn't sure whether it would screw with formatting, so asking here Alyx1a (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted a few for Trump and Biden and Obama
A single use, usually in a news article, is hardly a nickname. I say in order to qualify, the name should be something fairly widely used, not just something someone thought would make a nice headline (Deporter in Chief, Conspiracy Theorist in Chief). Bkatcher (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023
Hello mod

Get rid of Sloppy Joe from Joe Biden’s article. It sounds stupid an ive never once heard anyone refer to him as Sloppy Joe. As well there’s no citations. All-in-all Sloppy Joe is not a real nickname for Joe Biden and should be removed for being fake.

Thank you and hope you accept my request. SCM123ABC2023 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Now there are some citations.  -Lemonaka‎  08:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"The Great Communicator" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Communicator&redirect=no The Great Communicator] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

P01135809
P01135809 is trump's nickname due to his arrest. 2602:306:BC74:6240:9D85:60:797:9E40 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Jumbo an actual nickname LBJ had?
Was wondering if it’s true than it could be put on this page 99.232.236.142 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Genocide Joe" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_Joe&redirect=no Genocide Joe] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Teflon Don" for Trump?
Is this simply too controversial to officially apply to Donald Trump? I don't see this being far off from "Tricky Dick" for Nixon. Tguillea (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not that it is controversial and it's certainly apt. But, it is not in wide usage and that's what is needed. Besides, it refers to John Gotti.O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * His contemporaries in high office from both parties commonly called Nixon that in private, so I wouldn't compare the two. This is a nickname many people who tune the domestic political news out (like myself) haven't heard before because it seems to have made up by some campaign staffer who thinks they can throw mud better than Trump can. We don't call Bill Clinton "Slick Willie" here, right? If hypothetically James G. Blaine had been elected way back then, we'd call him "The Plumed Knight" not "The Continental Liar from the State of Maine", right?
 * I doubt the creator of this list foresaw through their WP:CRYSTAL that name-calling would become a regular feature of US politics, but there's no way any pre-2016 editor would have endorsed including coverage of names like the ones their opponents have called Trump and Biden. Names like "Bubba", "Dubya", and "No Drama Obama" hardly compare with "Don the Con" or "Brandon" (the last a new déclasé low in discourse). Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)