Talk:Donald Trump

Historical file size
Size of the article's wikitext over time. File size at the beginning of each month (UTC). File:Mandruss-Trump-graph-2020-11.png

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Arab–Israeli normalization agreements

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

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

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed shortening of one sentence in the lead section

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

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

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

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

This seeks to alter #Current consensus #35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

The point is that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could a statement like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support new version. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Recent citation Today in the NY Times Dishonesty Has Defined the Trump Presidency. The Consequences Could Be Lasting "Whether President Trump wins or loses on Nov. 3, the very concept of public trust in an established set of facts necessary for the operation of a democratic society has been eroded." Unprecedented, indeed. Bdushaw (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for brevity + link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for details. — JFG ^talk 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure

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

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

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

"during his campaign"

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

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

RfC: Arab–Israeli normalization agreements

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of fascism

WP:SOCK blocked power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a section about this here earlier but it got removed, maybe calling Trump a fascist straight up in article is not appropriate but it should at least be mentioned: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/06/910320018/fascism-scholar-says-u-s-is-losing-its-democratic-status https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/10/07/what-authoritarian-countries-can-tell-us-democracy-and-trump/3518563001/ https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/08/features/all-elements-are-place-american-style-fascism-says-cornel-west https://www.businessinsider.com/is-trump-fascist-jason-stanley-says-it-is-wrong-question-2020-7 Not all of these exactly scream "trump is an accepted fascist" but they all show the debate is real and major Xqd (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Xqd, see Political positions of Donald Trump. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Xqd, that is unlikely. It's possible to find sources describing various politicians as fascist, or communist, or socialist etc. For WP to apply those epithets, or even refer to them, it would take more than that. It's of course a different matter when politicians themselves employ them about their own policies. That's not the case here. Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. These sources are reliable. If not I think an even stronger case can ve made for mention of the word Authoritarian. Izmirlig (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that fascism is a bit too subjective, but it is hard to deny that he has authoritarian tendencies. Jamez517 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascism has taken on a different meaning and is not clearly defined as both sides of the political spectrum use that word to define their opposition. I think the term needs to be put to bed and is not suitable for an objective article BlackBird1008 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The word "Fascism" has been weaponized to its grave by both sides of the political spectrum, as have a boatload of other buzzwords. Its colloquial definition will not be agreed upon any time soon, and using it will only cause confusion. 64.98.122.56 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of First Step Act to domestic policy section

I would like permission to edit the Domestic Policy section of the Trump wikipedia page to add in the First Step Act. This is major, bipartisan legislation that he actually signed into law, not just stated positions, and this page should reflect as much. I plan to write no more than a paragraph and link to the wikipedia article on the First Step Act. I intend neither to exaggerate nor downplay the law, but just to point out that this was a product of his presidency.

FroggyJ4 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)FroggyJ4 2020nov3

I'm not strictly opposed to this, but nobody will want to deal with this today (or probably tomorrow either) with the election happening. I will note this is mentioned at Presidency of Donald Trump#Criminal justice, and that may be sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try again in a week; I think Social policy of Donald Trump should also be changed which doesn't seem to be locked, but there's no need for expediency. FroggyJ4 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)FroggyJ4 2020nov3

I would oppose inclusion. Trump had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the First Step Act except putting his signature to it, so it is not biographically significant. This was a bill that originated in the House but failed to pass the Senate because McConnell refused to give it a vote, until it was substantially revised. Neither Trump nor any member of is administration was involved in the bill's crafting. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Presidents are always given "credit" or responsibility in history for bills they sign, whether or not they participated in the writing of the bill. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Any bill signed under Trump's presidency is biographically significant to, in fact, any president's biography, if significant enough in importance or impact, whether positive or negative.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Every mention of the word black

Should we use the term African American when referring to Barack Obama in this article? --246700Sarhan (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not until someone shows that's the term used most of the time in reliable sources (I'm not seeing it). Political correctness is not a factor in such decisions at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We should be able to use them interchangeably. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Onetwothreeip. The terms are used fairly interchangably in common discourse and I don't see a reason why we shouldn't do so on Wikipedia. NateNate60 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 election

The 2020 election is a major event and should be mentioned in this article, even if its outcome is not yet known.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and that applies especially in a biography. Wait at least until a significant majority of RS say the outcome is known; then, if said outcome is a Biden win, the article can attempt to summarize the protracted legal battles – without detail about every filing, motion, and ruling. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that an observation or a rule? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

An observation. There is nothing in that policy that covers this as far as I know.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the last place anyone should look for information about the current election. There is no central tendency to the narratives in media or expert commmentary, and we haven't even heard from Alan Dershowitz yet! SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence or two, summarizing the current state of the election, in the "2020 presidential campaign" section. ValarianB (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you brave enough to propose something? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead and there is a section about the 2020 election. We will report the outcome when it is confirmed, which will be December 14th at the latest. TFD (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead because I put it there.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For consideration to add to the article lede:

Following his defeat in the 2020 United States presidential election, Trump became the first United States President to serve a single term since the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election. He was succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden.

-Red marquis (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that is not the way. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, purely trivia. Trump, Bush and Carter were all very different people with very different presidencies and very different reasons for losing to very different opponents in very different climates. All it would really convey or reflect is the author's intent, not define the subject. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe biden won election 786nab687 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Says who? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden has won this election. It is completely irresponsible to not make this clear in the article.67.168.92.239 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Idea worth mentioning in the article if true and verifiable

Here's a question - (especially if he loses) would Donald Trump be the first presidential candidate to falsely claim victory? Or have there been others prior? If this is true, and if there are sources for it, I think it would be worth mentioning in this article. I can't find a record yet. ɱ (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I would hardly think so. Trump is already notable for the sheer number of extreme things has has said during his Presidency. Adding one more to the list would be of little value. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is remarkable, potentially unique, and undemocratic to the point of being compared to statements of dictators. Definitely will become part of the article no matter what, we'll just have to see if he was the first to. ɱ (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Dewey in 1948? Might have just been news media declaring him the victor, and not him personally. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking about this, not sure. ɱ (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this and at the moment can't see any RS describing him as being the first president to do so. However, I think it'll be significant enough for inclusion anyway, particularly if his false victory claim continues to cause legal/violent chaos over the next few days. Jr8825 • Talk 00:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems it was only one paper that got it wrong and mistakenly ran with it, I don't think Dewey ever was assured of victory nor declared it. ɱ (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this isn't clear-cut. When does an expression of confidence in a result become undemocratic?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, saying it isn't clear-cut is not true. He has now declared victory twice (he did so a second time a few minutes ago). "If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us". There's a reason why the RS are all saying he has falsely declared victory. Biden has expressed confidence in a result, Trump has said "we already have won". Jr8825 • Talk 00:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That said, I suggest we wait for the winner of the race to be officially called before beginning to consider whether this should be included. Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to historical comparisons, not just Biden and Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not conflate "I'm confident we will win" and "Frankly, we did win this election," particularly while trying to stop the counting of votes. But any related content can wait until things shake out and settle down a bit. There is no deadline. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If the question is — is Trump the first person to behave like Trump? — then that is clearly true, but generally not worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been wondering this morning where to include the quite extraordinary Trump statements challenging the integrity of votes, voting, and vote counting, with the widely, bipartisanly condemned premature declaration of victory. He builds on his disinforming narrative from throughout the campaign. My own sources, predominately the NY Times and WA Post, call these statements "historic" and unprecedented. The NY Times is now using "lies" regularly. There are articles on how this rhetoric is undermining democracy and America's perception abroad. Perhaps a brief paragraph in concluding the "False statements" subsection, or perhaps in the 2020 campaign subsection? (Indeed this incident could well be an article on its own) Also playing into his psychology of the importance of "winning" whereas he may well lose this time. All still hardly beyond news hence likely premature for addition. Bdushaw (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Depends what happens exactly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Source

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

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

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

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

Challenging the presdential election legitimacy and results and declare of victory prior to seal of votes

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

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

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

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

Outgoing status

Joe Biden is now President-elect of the United Status. Should we add Lame Duck and Outgoing as the status? Ciaran.london (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And what other changes should be made?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s all I’ve noticed Ciaran.london (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I see the necessary changes were made.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Modifying the lead to add "due to leave office on January 20, 2021"

He has lost re-election and we should note this in the header. - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added, to the 2020 election section and the lead, that the major news outlets have pronounced Biden the president-elect. That isn't quite the same as saying Trump has lost, period, official, end of story. Let's see how Trump reacts. If he concedes, then yes, but I don't see that happening, at least not right away. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the courts will deny the case and he can sue but to no avail. And the real world version of WP: BOOMERANG applies. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Trump will not have been elected out until the delegates officially vote in December. Putting such a thing in the article would be intentionally misleading. Whether or not his likelihood of maintaining the presidency is large at all, the democratic process has yet to declare him the loser of the election. Moshimaster18 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Link in the COVID-19 section of the intro

I understand there are strict rules around changing anything about the Coronavirus paragraph in the introduction. I don't want to change the wording at all but think it would be more suitable given the American focus of the info to include a link 'Covid-19 in the United States' rather than the general 'Covid-19 pandemic' article. Llewee (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I know there are MOS:EGG concerns, but I think it's the more useful link for readers, and that's the more important thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. COVID-19 in the United States is more relevant, and more useful to the readers. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Makes sense. Bdushaw (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What to say in the lead

I think the only thing we should say in the lead is that he is projected to have lost his bid for re-election. People keep trying to add that he is filing legal challenges and promoting conspiracy theories; I think that should all be kept to the article text. There is massive edit conflicting going on as everyone tries to get their version in. Can I get either consensus here, or help in keeping the material out of the lead while we discuss it? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think keep it out until we have a agreement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We may need full prot here for a day or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a few hours of full protection at RfPP. I can't do it myself, I am too involved. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I have mentioned there that I support your request. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidency (2017–2021)

This title seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, he's expected to leave office in 2021, but this gives the impression that it has already happened, and a lot can happen between now and 20 January 2021. I think it should say present until he actually leaves office. Adam9007 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 is still better than present in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I favor "present". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "present' as that seems to be the consensus here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "present" as well. Even ignoring the projected loss, there's always the possibility he resigns or dies before the end of 2020. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if he lost the electoral college vote, there's still the possibility of a resignation or death before 2021. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume the he will have to accept his loss to Joe Biden and move on. And you all should make a minor edit that mentions that Trump is now a former 45th president of the US the day he leaves office. Billwang370 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Now taking guesses as to the number of seconds between Biden's "So help me God" and the edit to add "former". Closest guess wins a MAGA cap, slightly used. My guess: 2. Somebody will have the edit done in advance, with their mouse pointer sitting on the Publish changes button. The time of the completion of the oath of office, plus two seconds, will be forever recorded in this article's edit history. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

According to whom?? The american people

The citations over Biden succeeding Trump need to stop being vandalized by so-called "senior editors". Grow up - and stop trying to stir doubt and discourse over a clear result. EDIT: I want to request that Emir of Wikipedia have his editing rights for this page removed. He's clearly trying to propagate doubt over a clear result. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Om Namah Ramsut Sharma II removed that tag with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That the networks have called the election for Biden does NOT mean Biden is now officially the next president of the U.S. It doesn't work that way. Elections have been called incorrectly from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not the "networks calling it" It's simple math when you count the remaining ballots left. Biden DID win the election, disputing it ANYWHERE on this site is reckless and idiotic. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not until the electoral college says he is, the US does not have direct presidential elections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Trump camp still has some legal recourse remaining under our system. It will probably fail but "probably" is not enough for our purposes. This is an encyclopedia and there is NO RUSH TO PUBLISH. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden won the election legally, and fairly. Not including Biden as his successor is essentially legitimizing any notion put forth by the Trump campaign that the election is not over, and that the decision on who will be the next president hasn't been reached. It has. Biden is the president-elect, therefore - as has been the case with EVERY OTHER ELECTION, he must be included here. Period. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Thankfully, Wikipedia content is not determined by people demanding that things "must" be so, "period". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

I have just applied full protection to this page per a request at RFPP. Please achieve consensus before introducing your preferred changes. I know this page is not at an optimal revision for protection; if someone who has been actively editing at this page could point me to a good revision to restore that would be appreciated. @MelanieN and Emir of Wikipedia: perhaps? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll take a look. It may take me a few minutes. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I'd suggest the revision immediately prior to when the networks called the election. That would be this revision. Then we can do individual edits by prior consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If consensus is achieved for a change and you need help implementing it, feel free to ping me or grab the attention of any other admin. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, probably the right call, just noting one minor change I was about to make, in the lede q-anon should be cased as per its article as other titles in the lede are e.g. The Apprentice. SITH (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: The addition of the QAnon/q-anon mention in the lead was one of the changes introduced without consensus. After I reverted to the pre-announcement revision, it's no longer there: [5]. If consensus is achieved to add that paragraph, the stylization of the term can be agreed upon as well before it's reintroduced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WHY was Biden removed from the infobox. It's our practice to put the president-elect in there. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read any of the discussion here? If you do so, I think you will find the answer to your question. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So we're doing it differently now? We kept Trump's name in Barack Obama's infobox, even before his inauguration or his election by the Electoral college. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we're editing by consensus like on any other article. It ought to be easy to achieve consensus if it's as standard a change as you say (I genuinely don't know—I don't think I was involved in editing any of the presidency articles around the time of the Obama transition). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare and MelanieN: would someone kindly remove CN, and improper synthesis tags from lead? They are properly sourced in the main body. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: It looks like it was User:Emir of Wikipedia who added those tags—perhaps begin a discussion below where you, they, and anyone else who is interested can reach an agreement on whether the statements are properly sourced. I'd rather not make any more changes to the page without at least a rough consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare and MelanieN, there's a ton of history related to that sentence, but it's been extensively discussed. The stable version is for it to be there without the improper synthesis tag (which was added without discussion less than 24 hours ago). See current consensus item 48. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

   Reviewing... Appreciate the background; I haven't followed this page very closely until today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

   Done Tag removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioning at all that major networks have called the election in favor of Biden is a disservice to public discourse. Regardless of whether or not the Electoral college actually ends up electing Biden President, the fact that every major network has called the election is newsworthy and requires mentioning on this page at this point in time. Supertowel (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it certainly should be mentioned in the body of the article at this point; the question is what specific text should be added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Supertowel: Feel free to begin a discussion below with any suggested additions. Any change can be implemented as a result of consensus—the page protection and reversion was simply to undo the massive flurry of editing without consensus that began after the CNN/etc. announcements. It does not mean the page cannot change for 12 hours, it just enforces that editors must reach consensus first, then introduce the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Thanks for all your help, but boy, I sure disagree with that call. I think we HAVE to have in the article at least the information that the networks have called it. I have been a careful stroll through the history and was coming here to suggest restoration of the 17:52 version [6]. I don't think there is anything like consensus to restore the article to status pre the election call. But it is what it is, so I will start proposing additions to the article, and if there is consensus I will request the help of an uninvolved administrator to add it. I will try not to make it be you all the time! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I support Melanie's proposal for restoring 17:52. There's never been a precedence here for not listing the president-elect. It delegitimizes this entire process. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That's fair enough, I've restored that revision, minus some of the conspiracy theory changes (being discussed below at #RfC: Describing Trump as conspiracy theorist in lede?). You're right that there did/does appear to be rough consensus for that addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it ludicrous that despite all credible sources naming Biden president-elect and Trump the loser of the election, the article does not reflect that fact. It is also very unfortunate that tags that were unconstructively added to the article lead are stuck there due to page protection, even though extensive talk page consensus has been built regarding the lead. A terrible shame this has been handled so badly despite the article's paramount importance in the present moment. JJARichardson (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@JJARichardson: Please review the most recent revision, which does include Biden being president-elect (and the comment you're replying to, in which I said that I'd restored that). As for the tags, perhaps start a discussion below. I don't think spending more time on determining precisely which revision to protect is the best use of time—in my opinion it's at least close enough to reflecting past consensus, and we can just roll forward from here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I still maintain that the inclusion of the "improper synthesis" tag (unconstructively added to a sentence with talk page consensus) does serious disservice when thousands if not millions of readers will be flocking to this article. JJARichardson (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@JJARichardson: Again, I would recommend achieving consensus for the tag to be removed below. My goal when reverting this page was to find a revision that most closely matched consensus before today's flurry of edits following the news networks' announcements. Removing a synthesis tag that was there pre-flurry, without ensuring the concerns of the editor who added it were addressed, is not part of that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, GW. Somehow when you removed the disputed material, you also removed the statement in the lead saying that the networks had called it. I have listed it in the "proposed additions" below. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That was intentional. There was an {{undue}} tag on it, indicating it was also disputed, and so I removed it so that it could be discussed here first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The "undue" tag referred to the second part of the sentence - "the first incumbent president to do so since George H. W. Bush in 1992." - not to the network call which had been added earlier. But that first part of the sentence is under discussion below, so we can see if it gets consensus to restore. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I wondered why you didn't also remove the last paragraph of the lead, which has an "undue synthesis?" tag on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Primarily because that was in place before today's flurry of edits, whereas the other sentence was not. Both can and should be discussed on the talk page, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks again, and I apologize for dragging you into all this craziness.-- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Just a heads up that I have removed the tag per Sdkb's comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we're 9 hours into the 12 hours of full-protection. I think it's working well, and based on other articles about the election there's still a high demand from ECP editors for edits that will not have consensus. I know it's not up for a vote, but I suggest that it be extended another 24 hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today I was planning to drop the protection tonight and see how it went, but I think you're right based on how other articles are faring. I will probably extend the protection, though I'll make it expire sometime that isn't 1AM EST to make this easier on any American admins (myself included) who may be reviewing whether protection needs to be extended tomorrow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that the full protection has expired as of 17:57, and I've reinstated the indefinite extended-confirmed protection that was in place. I'll keep the page on my watchlist in case disruption resumes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah well, it was worth a try. Protected for another 24h due to warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Degree

Could someone please reword in the second paragraph so as to clarify which school he attended and which school conferred his bachelor’s degree. The way it is currently worded you can’t tell what if any degree he earned from Fordham.   Thorncrag  18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's not an urgent matter. The full protection will soon expire and then you can fix it yourself. I think this may have been discussed here before so you might search the talk page to see if there's already a consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The article's body does not mention a degree from Fordham, and no degree from Fordham is mentioned in the infobox, so I assumed he didn't get a degree at Fordham. It's not uncommon to attend a school for two years without receiving a degree. The article does not need to state what didn't happen, especially in the lead. Further, the lead should not include any information not present in the body. Consider your proposed edit preemptively disputed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

clarify ... which school conferred his bachelor’s degree. I don't see anything unclear about "received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania." ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There’s no need to overthink or over complicate my request. Simply changing “and” to “then” would make the reading more concise.   Thorncrag  22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as unnecessary and slightly less natural, adding a new comma before "then". The word "then" would merely indicate the chronological sequence that is already assumed. Sorry if you feel I'm overthinking, but I think I'm thinking approximately the right amount. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for addition to this full-protected article

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

Add election call to the lead

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

---

I propose to add In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support though I have quibbles about the wording. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: We should include something about this, yes, but the wording isn't ideal. We should also include something about when he will be succeeded by president-elect Biden, along the lines of what was added to Obama's article in 2016 ("On January 20, 2017, Obama will be succeeded by President-elect Donald Trump"), and include Biden in the infobox as elect; see Obama the day after the 2016 election. --Tataral (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Those details need not go in the lead. I'll start a separate section for your proposed additions. Let's keep this section to the proposed wording, we can get separate consensus for additions. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Good call. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  P.S. Biden is already in the infobox as president-elect. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  He had been removed again[7] shortly before I wrote my comment, so I didn't notice that he had been readded, for which I apologise. --Tataral (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support I don't like the wording either but at this point there needs to be some mention of the election in the lede Zingarese talk · contribs 21:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This should be implemented quickly, as the current state of the lede is a major NPOV violation. We should remain open to improvements of this wording later on, and of course to mentioning who his main opponent in that election was - it's quite strange that the lede has not included this information so far. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, and urge immediate implementation. Not having this on the page hours after the projections have been made is a WP:DEADLINE IS NOW violation at the biggest possible scale. If administrator discretion is needed to determine some aspects of the wording, fine, but the status quo is obviously unacceptable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Essays can't be violated, but I think the unanimous support of five editors is enough to implement this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Happy enough to implement it, but could I get some idea of where in the lead this ought to go? Just tack it on at the end? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, I would say yeah, put it at the end, since the last three paragraphs are all about his presidency. No strong views about whether it should be a separate paragraph from COVID or not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Originally at the end of the last para.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• 'Comment: the lead currently doesn't even mention the election campaign any more.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Add election call to the 2020 presidential campaign section

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

---

I propose to add On November 7, 2020, after four days of vote counting, most major news outlets projected Biden as the winner of the presidential election. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support (though it looks like this is already in the article). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Without TP consensus, don't count on it staying there. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Add Trump reaction to the 2020 presidential campaign section

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

---

I propose to add Trump indicated that he does not accept this result and said "this election is far from over". He revived his claims of election fraud and said he will continue to launch legal challenges in key swing states. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support (though it looks like this is already in the article). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Sources

Add a sentence to the lead about succession

See also: Talk:Donald Trump § In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. We can discuss the precise wording, but the name of the expected successor and the date of the transition are highly relevant facts in any politician's article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at this stage.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support All reliable sources have recognized Biden as President-Elect and have judged Trump's challenges as groundless and frivolous. So far, they have been swiftly dismissed by the courts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - For now. There is no rush. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He could still die or resign before the end of 2020. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support All reliable sources and Biden's own Wikipedia articles names him as president-elect. JJARichardson (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#Should_Trump_be_listed_in_the_Infobox_as_Obama's_successor?. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood the question. This is for the lead, not the infobox? Then support (per precedent). Arguments like Trump is not Obama are meritless; the constant argument that the presidency is nothing in the context of Trump's life is baloney. Once you're a president, you're remembered in history for being a president. Not for running The Apprentice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I like this wording, it's matter-of-fact without rubbing salt on a contentious issue by unnecessarily saying that Trump "lost". Presumably it would replace the text "In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election." The wording suggested by El komodos drago works just as well in my view. Jr8825 • Talk 07:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jr8825. Volunteer Marek 04:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy-edit/language updates

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

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

"President Elect"

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

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

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

Biden is the president-elect; this is established in his own article too and is how he is described by all reliable sources. We described Trump as president-elect and included him as Obama's successor in Obama's article the day after the 2016 election, ages before the electoral college convened and before the votes were even counted.[9],[10] Judging by reliable sources it's an extremist fringe POV/conspiracy theory that Biden "isn't president-elect". It's standard practice in Wikipedia to include elected successors in the infobox with the qualification "elect". There is no reason to invent a new rule applied only to Biden just because Trump lost. --Tataral (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How about verifiability and truth? The term is codified in federal law as the apparent successful candidate for the office of President in an election. It directs the GSA to "ascertain" the apparent winner and provide transitional services to the President-elect.[11] See this term "apparent" when the Administrator of the GSA confirmed Barack Obama as president-elect the day after the election.[12] It has nothing to do with the Electoral College as suggested here. Also, as is clear from coverage of the current election, the GSA does not "declare" one the President-Elect, but merely ascertains it.[13] GreatCaesarsGhost 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

What happened to the "Offices and distinctions" template at the bottom of the article?

What happened to the "Offices and distinctions" template which typically catalogs an elected official's positions they've held at the bottom of the article? Was it temporarily removed due to vandalism related to Biden succeeding Trump? Was it removed due to the size of the page? Was it removed accidentally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 122#What happened to the succession boxes? The answers to many questions are found in this page's archives, which are searchable at the top of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

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

---

This is probably WP: OR, but because Trump got at max 261 votes, I think we should add that his term ended(er, will end)on January 21, 2021(at 17:00 UTC to be exact!) HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Improper use of the edit request facility, and duplicates discussion already active on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] @Mandruss: it’s on full protection, would prefer to hear from an admin. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct that consensus should be achieved before posting an edit request, except uncontroversial changes (typofixes, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

And there is existing discussion about this, as I said previously. Feel free to participate there. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: where? Please respond quickly before I go to bed. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I beat you to bed. Actually, you may have a new discussion here depending on where you propose to add this. Lead prose? Infobox? Body prose? You could add a more specific proposal as a new subsection in #Proposals for addition to this full-protected article. Or you could wait until things have quieted down and returned to something approaching normalcy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Newly discovered in the guidance for {{Infobox officeholder}} (my emphasis): "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." FYI. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mandruss. That should settle the question as far as the infobox is concerned. GorillaWarfare has removed it from the infobox, so we just have to decline requests to add it. BTW it was edit warring over that very point that caused her to reinstate the full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: That should settle the question - I agree. Others disagree. See #Survey: "Succeeded by" field. FTR, I removed it pending consensus, not GW, and the EW ensued. GW just agreed with me. I like GW. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You lost count. You were the first person to remove it, but it was immediately re-added and re-removed several times. GW was the third person to remove it, and she did it after locking the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Authoritarianism/fascism

I think we need to revisit this, as the discussion above has stalled because of a sock's involvement, as well as a couple of editors erroneously suggesting that fascism is purely a subjective term, yet merits proper consideration. There seems to be a considerable (and growing) body of academic work on the fascistic elements of Trump's populist, authoritarian politics and his 'fascist' political style. As an aside, I've also noticed an explosion in the use of the term 'Trumpism' to describe these characteristics in analysis pieces over the last week following his election loss. I'm sure that academic writing will expand over time on this, but from a rather cursory look on JSTOR I strongly suspect there are already enough sources to warrant describing his political style as 'authoritarian', or even exhibiting 'fascistic' traits, perhaps in the presidency section. A quick search on JSTOR found 1,544 hits for "Donald Trump president authoritarian" and 714 hits for "Donald Trump president fascist".

RS media overwhelmingly take the view that one of Trump's most significant legacies will be his influence on far-right politics. I read a piece published on Friday by the Brookings Institution (a notable cut above your average newspaper editorial or think-tank) in which one of its senior fellows on governance policy wrote: "More broadly, Trump’s core appeal is the appeal of fascism: the pleasure of inflicting cruelty and humiliation on those one fears and disdains, the gratification of receiving the authoritarian’s flattery, and the exhilaration of a crowd freed from the normal strictures of law, reason and decency." [14]

Some relevant academic sources (discounting media such as RS newspapers & magazines) may include:

• Foster, John Bellamy (2017). Trump in the White House: tragedy and farce. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 9781583676806. JSTOR j.ctt1qv5qzf.

"The rise of Donald Trump to president of the United States is commonly thought to represent the triumph of "right-wing populism," or simply "populism". The term populism is notoriously difficult to define, since lacking any definite substantive content² ... Right-wing populism is an euphemism introduced into the European discussion in the last few decades to refer to movement in the "fascist genus" (fascism/neo-fascism/post-fascism), characterized by virulently xenophobic, ultra-nationalist tendencies, rooted primarily in the lower-middle class and relatively privileged sections of the working class⁵ ... The same basic phenomenon has now triumphed in the United States, in the form of Trump's rise to chief executive." (pp. 57–58)

• Kellner, Douglas (2018). "Donald Trump as Authoritarian Populist: A Frommian Analysis". In Morelock, Jeremiah (ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. London: University of Westminster Press. pp. 71–82. doi:10.2307/j.ctv9hvtcf.8. ISBN 9781912656042.

Trump obviously fits the Critical Theory model of an authoritarian character and his 2016 Presidential campaign replicates in some ways the submission to the leader and the movement found in authoritarian populism. The Frankfurt School undertook in the 1930s studies of the authoritarian personality and Fascism, although I would argue that Trump is not Hitler and his followers are not technically fascists.⁴ ... Trump has neither the well-articulated party apparatus, nor the full-blown ideology of the Nazis, and thus more resembles the phenomena of authoritarian populism or neofascism which we can use to explain Trump and his supporters (p. 72)

• Klinenberg, Eric; Zaloom, Caitlin; Marcus, Sharon (2019). Antidemocracy in America: Truth, Power, and the Republic at Risk. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231190114. JSTOR 10.7312/klin19010.

Grinding bureaucracy or rule by misrule are not inherently fascist in operation. Government structures earn that term when they legitimate themselves by drawing on the politics of purge: evil forces—Jewish bankers, Mexican grape pickers, transgenders, political correctors, eco-ranters, etc.—all are weakening the economy, taking jobs away from "us", or sapping the moral fiber of the country. ... Antidemocratic policies follow directly from the puritan purge: rather than working with complexity, avoid it. ... The greatest threat to rule by misrule is policy that stands apart from the ruler's person. He wants policy to be an emanation of his desire, his will, his character. It's for this reason that the soft fascist has no real respect for law, because it regulates and standardizes impersonally. (pp. 74–75)

• Dean, John W.; Altemeyer, Bob (2020). Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing. ISBN 9781612199054.

I saw a favourable review of this book, only recently published, in the Washington Post. Altemeyer has a strong reputation for his studies on authoritarianism. Jr8825 • Talk 07:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we need more discussion of his ideology, and there is a large number of high quality reliable sources, including a growing body of academic literature, that discusses his policies and ideology/Trumpism in the context of fascism. For years there was resistence against adequate critical discussion of Putinism too, possibly by accounts affiliated with the Kremlin, but I suspect we will have a thorough discussion of Trumpism, also in the context of fascism, in time. --Tataral (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree there are reliable sources stating that there are some worrying warning signs that Trump has a tendency towards facist/authoritarian ideology. I would support adding some text about this to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Succeeded by" field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it just me, or do you keep changing your position as to this field and the use of caution more generally? The infobox item "succeeded by" is past tense Beat you by 19 hours.[15] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey: "Succeeded by" field

Omit or include.

• Omit per {{Infobox officeholder}} guidance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We didn't do it when Bush or Obama were still in office.[17][18] Trump's designated successor incidentally is Vice President Mike Pence. Should Trump leave office before his term expires, Pence would become president. TFD (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  (edit conflict)Note: I've partial-blocked GoodDay from this article. I didn't block Mandruss because when I removed the 1RR restriction earlier today I specifically said, "If I see [edit warring] going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it." Mandruss AFAICT was reverting toward the status quo, towards the apparent consensus (the vote was 7-4 for omit at the time by my count), and was using good edit summaries. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-RfC: "Succeeded by" field

Here's a proposed RfC for Template talk:Infobox officeholder, discussed above. Suggestions for improvement welcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is about the |successor= parameter of {{infobox officeholder}}. When present, this field displays as Succeeded by in the infobox. When an incumbent loses re-election or otherwise loses the office, should the parameter be filled in immediately or wait until the transition has actually occurred? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

BACKGROUND

1. The infobox template doc currently says: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place."
2. There is apparently quite a bit of existing precedent for filling in the parameter immediately, adding "(elect)" following the successor's name. The "(elect)" is then removed when the transition takes place.
3. The template doc guidance is oddly placed at the end of the doc's lead, rather than in the |successor= parameter description, so it would be easy to miss. It is unknown whether editors creating the precedents were aware of its existence, or whether such awareness would have affected their edits.
4. In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, some of the disagreement centers around the interpretation of the phrase Succeeded by, some editors saying it's past tense and should be treated as such, others saying it can mean "to be succeeded by" when "(elect)" is shown.
5. The goal of this RfC is to establish a community consensus for site-wide consistency in these situations, one way or the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Perhaps one of the possible options for an RfC could be to add a parameter to the infobox for "elected successor" or "to be succeeded by"? Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hmmm. My take is that "(elect)" adequately accomplishes the same thing, and readers could figure it out without a lot of effort. Your suggestion would add complication to the RfC, possibly reducing the chances of reaching a consensus. If the new parameter was accepted, it would add complexity to the template and its doc – for marginal benefit in my opinion. If somebody wanted to propose such a thing in the RfC discussion, they would be free to do so even if I would oppose; I rarely see RfCs that stick to the options initially presented. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just toying with ideas and a more straightforward RfC sounds good. Jr8825 • Talk 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Signature achievements per lead and body

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

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

Now that's a lotta lead

The lead is too broken up and long. Even for very long articles there are rarely more than 5 paragraphs. Heck, Abraham Lincoln only has a 4 paragraph lead. To improve this I suggest: the COVID notes be added to the end of the "During his presidency..." paragraph. Then I guess we can leave the last paragraph to deal with him post presidency. Other thoughts on how to condense or shorten the lead appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't count paragraphs and I fail to see the importance of paragraph count. I've argued that the lead is too long, but that was word count, not paragraph count. As long as it improved readability, and paragraph breaks often do so, I wouldn't care if it had ten paragraphs. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not terrible, but I do think we could trim the lead a bit on the margins (the section above being one example). Reducing the Mueller/impeachment paragraph down to a sentence or two would be another opportunity. I agree with Mandruss that the word count matters more than the paragraph count. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that the Mueller paragraph should be shortened, it's too much detail. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What about:

• Removing "Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that offense."
• Condensing "welcomed and encouraged" to either welcomed or encouraged or some synonym
• Removing "under the belief that it would be politically advantageous" (thats somewhat apparent, why would they do it if it were not politically advantageous?)

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election.

See also: Talk:Donald Trump § Add a sentence to the lead about succession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter curtains the DT twitter account

I saw it happen Saturday am; and now I'm seeing the media covering it. I think it is significant that Twitter shut down Trump's twitter account for making baseless claims etc. following the media networks calling the election for Biden. Kind of surprised to see nothing in the article about this. Seems notable. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to your comment to remove an unnecessary [ symbol. To comment on the substance, his account was not "shut down" at all, and this is a good example of why we go off reliable sources - any source with any form of editorial oversight, fact checking, etc wouldn't have made the claim that Trump's account was "curtained" or "banned" or anything of the like. To clarify further, "curtained" implies that it was "ended", which it wasn't. Note also that the article has an entire section (Donald Trump#Social media) and even a separate article about this, which both do mention that Twitter has been flagging some of his tweets. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. A simple look at @realDonaldTrump will reveal that his twitter page is still active and that he continues to shitpost at a rate unpresidented in American politics. Mgasparin (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Lede addition

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary suspension of WP:1RR rule

In order to give regular editors the leeway they need to deal with an increase in unhelpful "drive-by" edits, I am temporarily suspending the one-revert rule that has been on this article. The "24-hour BRD" rule listed in the Discretionary Sanctions template at the top of this page still applies. Here's what this means in practice:

• Every editor may now make up to 3 reverts per day per WP:3RR. BUT...
• You may not make the same edit or revert more than once per day (per the BRD rule) and after your first time making that edit or revert, you must discuss it on the talk page and wait 24 hours before attempting that edit again.

Put another way, reverts are linked to content. You can revert up to 3 different edits per day, but you can't add or remove the same content more than once per day.

Again, the purpose of this is to allow regular/experienced/content editors to deal with legitimately unhelpful or POV edits. It's not to give people more leeway in edit warring over content disputes that are under discussion or to engage in "tag-team edit warring" where editors take turns reverting the same content over and over. If I see that going on I will start blocking people's accounts, starting with the editors who are reverting against the status quo ante, those reverting against emerging consensus on the talk page, and those who are not using helpful WP:Edit summaries that clearly describe what they're doing and why they're doing it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the reverts you're exempting are already exempt per WP:3RRNO anyway as either BLP issues or overt vandalism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit to EFN note B

I feel that it would be beneficial to note that President-elect Joe Biden would be the oldest President to be inaugurated on EFN note b.

Proposed edit: He became the oldest first-term U.S. president <-efn|Ronald Reagan was older upon his second-term inauguration. When inaugurated, Joe Biden would be the oldest first-term President at age 77-> and the first without prior military or government service. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why? What has this to do with Donny?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

TO ALL EDITORS: Edit requests are not substitutes for the "New section" link at the top of this page, and it's unhelpful to treat an edit request as the start of a discussion. Edit requests are not discussions by definition, rather they are requests for edits that do not require discussion. See WP:Edit requests for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Upon further inspection this edit is likely not relevant enough for inclusion. For this reason, I withdraw my proposal. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fired by tweet...Secretary of Defence

Uncertain about all this mayhem, but I note that Trump has fired Defense Secretary Esper by a tweet WA POST. Perhaps, in the Social Media section, In March 2018, Trump fired his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson by tweet. could be rewritten as Trump used twitter to fire his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in March 2018 and his Secretary of Defense Mark Esper in November 2020. Bdushaw (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Might be better in another article more related to the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing full protection

The removal of full protection yesterday lasted a little over an hour. Let's see if we can make it last longer today. This isn't the time for bold rewrites of the article or edit wars.

A note about edit summaries: use them. Please. When an article is receiving hundreds of edits per day it's the easiest way for people reviewing those edits to track what's going on. Say what you're doing and why you're doing it. And if you're reverting an edit, please use the edit summary to invite the user you're reverting to the talk page, linking the relevant thread if there is one. For example, in this revert, instead of using the edit summary "per talk" you should write something like "There is an active discussion on whether the infobox should list Biden as successor at Talk:Donald_Trump#Survey:_"Succeeded_by"_field. Please join in that discussion and wait for a consensus to form before adding this again." That will help get the new editors on the same page instead of inspiring people to revert war. ~Awilley (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Reduced

Hi. I reduced archiving to 4 days now because the talk page is extrodionarily large. Feel free to revert without consulting me if I'm wrong. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'll take you up on your gracious offer. It isn't unmanageable in my opinion, and besides, #Current consensus #13. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that many threads can be manually archived after 24 hours if they meet the conditions specified in #13. It will help minimize thread count if editors close discussions when appropriate (if in doubt, don't) and answer edit requests promptly. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania. He did not go to the Wharton School. The Wharton School is the graduate school of Business. Trump went to UPenn for undergraduate school. 23.28.130.43 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: False Zingarese talk · contribs 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Zingarese talk · contribs 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

President Trumps signature is inaccurate - has changed since beginning of presidency. Should be updated to match historical data (executive orders, letters, etc) - https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-signature-16x-9_colorcorrected.jpeg?quality=75&strip=all&w=900&h=900&crop=1 YOU CAN FIND UPDATE IMAGE HERE. Thank you, BRAM BramTheAmerican (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Section under "2020 presidential campaign" contains incorrect date

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

---

This line: "On election night, November 5, with the result unclear, Trump declared victory.[843] On November 7, most major news outlets projected Biden as the winner.[844] In response, Trump said, "this election is far from over". He alleged election fraud without providing evidence and said he would continue to launch legal challenges in key states." contains incorrect information. Election night was November 3rd, 2020. Request that the date be updated to accurately reflect the correct timeframe. 68.202.210.41 (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Bdushaw (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Biased

I'm just simpleton and don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but simply juxtaposing Donald Trump and Barack Obama's wikipedia articles clearly show this. You can see how Barack Obama's page focuses on all the positive aspects of Obama and Donald Trump's lead focuses on all the negative aspects of Trump. I did not vote for Trump, so this has nothing to do with my own personal bias. Not a single "negative" thing Obama did is covered in the lead and almost everything about Trump is negative. Can this not clearly be seen? I think both sides should have representation in what each President did that was considered both positive and negative. Flag this any way you want, but it's clear as day.