Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mandruss (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 31 March 2017 (→Two sentences for the lead paragraph?: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Donald Trump is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by ThatGirlTayler (talk) at 00:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Donald Trump at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "This is the President of the United States".

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris = (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, November 13–19, 2016, January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per this discussion including an admin. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as ], item .

1. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2)

2. Show birthplace as "New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link)

3. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

4. 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. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15)

5. Use Donald Trump's net worth value (currently $3.5 billion), and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (current edition), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link)

6. Do not mention the anonymous Jane Doe rape lawsuit, as it was withdrawn. (link)

7. Include "Many of his statements in interviews, on social media, and at campaign rallies were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2)

8. Mention that Trump is the first president elected without prior military or governmental service. (link)

9. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. 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. (link 1, link 2)

11. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

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

15. 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 has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense. No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5)

16. Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link)

Open RfCs

• #RfC - LGBT rights
• #Request for comments (RFC) about whether the lead paragraph should say he's the current president

RfC: How to describe the popular vote outcome

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.

Close requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is about the final phrase of a sentence in the lede -

Current Version: He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.

The question is whether to replace the current wording of the final phrase. The earlier part of the sentence is a consensus version and is not under discussion here, only the final phrase. This has been extensively discussed above, and after much discussion and compromise we have come up with the following choices, which should be the basis of this RfC.

• • Option 1: The wording currently in the article: ...and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote.
  • Option 2: ...and the fifth to have lost the national popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 ". . .and the fifth to lose the popular vote ' SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 4: ...and the fifth after losing the national popular vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment if you can support the following new wording for the end of the election summary paragraph in the lede.

Reasoning: I think "the fifth ___" is too abbreviated. "to have lost" because "to lose" implies he we president before he lost the popular vote. "losing the popular vote" is wording that many sources use even though it is not a contest to be won or lost or even part of any criteria for being president. If you do not support, please say why. Bod (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Bodhi Peace: You need to show a full sentence so that editors know the context. The ending must follow from the beginning of the sentence in tense and verb form. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural note – The anonymous poster of this RfC should have obtained local consensus in the ongoing discussions before throwing their preferred wording to RfC. — JFG 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Preference

• Option 2 Option 3 This version is much clearer and is more in line with how Reliable Sources have described the outcome. "Plurality" is kind of an obscure word and is not necessarily clear to all readers. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: I prefer Option 3, I would accept Option 2, and I oppose Option 1. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I also oppose the newly added Option 4 as unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed your mind, then? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The version I previously accepted was something like "the fifth to become president after losing the popular vote". That was clear. "The fifth after losing the popular vote" is not clear. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Okay, thanks Melanie. I like support those options, as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's not about the sources, it's about the grammar. "To have lost" does not match the sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, to lose the national popular vote. That matches. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I got distracted by Bodhi's wording, which as far as I know has never been proposed before. I meant to list the version which seems close to consensus in the discussion above - "the fifth to lose the popular vote." I see that parts of the proposal are getting struck and comments changed; yet another reason to abort this and start over. what we are left with may be a viable RfC despite its rocky start. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Melanie. @MelanieN: I thought we were there on our own, I don't know why Bodhi started an RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - There is enough wrong with this RfC to justify an abort. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, if policy permits. I tried to reformulate this into a proper RfC comparing the existing version with the version that seemed to have reach consensus in discussion, but it would be better to start that RfC properly from the beginning. Maybe we could get Bodhi Peace to withdraw this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my agreement with "abort". Bodhi Peace has now struck his original comment and replaced it with the fuller explanation and the three options. This leaves us with a possibly viable RfC. Other people may wish to strike or remove their comments about the earlier procedural problems if they have been dealt with. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Abort costs only a few hours and results in a far cleaner end product, well worth the cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK policy permits either voluntary withdrawal or a consensus to abort. Obviously I would prefer the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, IAR and WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It's about grammar. "To have lost" is bad form in this sentence. We'll have to change the whole thing. Just say, "To lose the national popular vote." SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing grammatically wrong with "to have lost". One could argue that it's unnecessarily conplex. But my abort !vote has nothing to do with grammar, so that's moot to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2Option 1 It's been discussed before. "Lost the popular vote" is not a normal way of describing an electoral win. The president of Mexico (36%) and the prime minster of Canada (39%) received a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump, but no one says they "lost the popular vote." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: You sure you made the right choice? Bod (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, now corrected. TFD (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Spurious argument. Neither Mexico nor Canada is a de facto two party, de jure winner-take-all system like the United States. And please no other spurious arguments about the US not being a legally mandated 2 party system. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Grammar issue with Option 2 . .to have lost is bad form. . .use plain English. . ."the fifth to lose the popular vote," much better. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural close as above abort vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Point out the national popular vote in 2016, was California vs the rest of the country. Take California out & Trump finishes about 1.5 millions votes ahead of Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Very clear and seems to agree with sources. Nothing wrong with grammar. Similar to proposed version. If @GoodDay: can provide 3 reliable sources, support mentioning CA as the sole reason for the defeat in the popular vote. Of course, either #2 or #3 is better than current. Bod (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – Can't make sense of all this back-and-forth editing of the question by multiple people, plus random comments in the !votes. — JFG 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 (both seem equally good to me.) They seem to reflect how it's covered in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's perfectly understandable, avoids calling Trump a loser which is totally unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ist choice Option 3 or 2nd choiceOption 2, clear simple, linked to relevant article for those who don't understand the concept and 'college' system. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 - That's what happened and was reported. Objective3000 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Objective3000: Note above MelanieN's change of vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose either 2 or 3. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please choose either 2 or 3. Note above, MelanieN changed her vote to Option 3 and her rationale. Please choose just one. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SW3, there is no requirement that people choose one only. If they don't express a preference they can be counted as support for both; if they have a first choice and a second choice they can say that. Personally my !vote would be "prefer Option 3; accept Option 2; oppose Option 1", and I should probably clarify that above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 has not been excluded has it? Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If Opt2 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 2. If Opt 3 is in the lead, I'm for Opt 3. Just end it. Objective3000 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Abort per above. Rerun later... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2. Achieving "less than a plurality" in a popular vote in the United States is understood as "losing" that vote, which is how reliable sources describe such an outcome, so Option 1 is overly complicated. (It even still links to an article about people who "lost" the popular vote.) I prefer Option 2 over Option 3 because I believe 2 gives a better description. Option 3 describes him as a president who lost the vote, which sounds like losing the vote happened when he was president. Option 2 makes it clear that he took office, having previously lost the vote. At the time he became the president, his loss in the popular vote had taken place earlier; this is correct use of the perfect infinitive tense, and is grammatically correct in the sentence. DavidK93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 – None of the options reflects how the so-called popular vote is covered in reliable sources. Usually it is not mentioned at all: out of twelve randomly picked sources that say Trump won the election (, , , , , , , , , , , ) I could find only one that makes the distinction between electoral college vote and popular vote (LA Times mentions the popular vote because Sanders brought it up), which suggests that mentioning popular vote gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. There was never a contest for popular vote, hence there can be no winners or losers. If we imply that there were two contests, then we must follow reliable sources and mention U.S. Electoral College. Majority (or plurality) of non-US readers have no clue what the heck electoral college is, which the majority (or plurality) of participants here have not addressed. All suggested options have problems, but the current one is the least worst option. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 4, with mild support for option 3, feeble, arm-twisting support for option 2, and total opposition to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Opt.3 makes it plain he lost the popular vote. That's the real issue. Won the presidency, lost the popular vote. Keep in mind, loads of people don't want any mention of him losing anything. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Mild support" means exactly that. I'd prefer the "after losing" construct, but I've already agreed to the "to lose" construct in option 3 that you prefer. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - It's perfectly fine and neutral, I find it ridiculous people are getting unsettled by it. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  The issue with option 1 is the word "plurality", which is only familiar to the small percentage of Americans with an interest in electoral politics. It is not used at all in all the other English-speaking nations of the world, which the English language Misplaced Pages is meant to cover. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. This is the English language Misplaced Pages, not the American Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I see no compelling reason to change the long standing content. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's only "long standing" because every attempt to change it has been reverted, and the current version is being "held" until a consensus for a new version is reached. So this is not a convincing argument at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  That section has been brought up over and over. The current wording is what has survived. I doubt anyone is 100% happy with it, but there is something to be said for that being the longest lived. I also see no arguments strong enough to change it. Plus if everyone dislikes it at least a little you know its a good compromise. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Is it possible you didn't actually read my comment? It has only "survived" because it was being held during the near continuous discussions over the last few weeks. Anyway, it appears from the RfC that the existing version is unlikely to survive any longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  I fully read and understand the comments you made, I just disagree with them. At the moment it looks like about 5 votes for 1-3 and 1 vote for 4. So I there is no clear answer which version will win at this point, though it does not look like a clear consensus will be formed. Especially with the number of options presented. Though whatever the outcome I'm sure it will be best for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it is the most suitable and encyclopedic version based on reasoning provided in this RFC and previous discussions.--IntelligentName (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 - or 2 or 4. Option 1's wording is confusing and misleading. Let's keep the language plain and direct. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the most neutral and encyclopedic. Laurdecl 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Options 2 and 3, although I prefer option 3. Zakawer (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, option 1 – If this trainwreck of an RfC doesn't get suspended, I support status quo Option 1, not because I like the convoluted phrasing, but because all other options emphasize "losing the popular vote" which is a non-existent contest in the US presidential electoral system, and therefore misleading readers with regard to the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. By the same token, a consensus of editors has rightly rejected material stating that Trump "won an overwhelming majority of counties", because that too is a non-existent contest. — JFG 10:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have no problem with "losing" the popular vote. Hundreds of high quality sources are available. It may not be technically true, but it's how it is perceived. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Concise wins here. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• option 1 There is no popular vote to win or lose. Such a description is factually incorrect and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the most neutral and accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3. Summoned by bot. I respond to a lot of these and I wanted to compliment the initiator of this RfC for putting forth a clear and neutral choice. I think Option 3 is worded simplest and most direct, and utilizes language that is clearest. I see no neutrality issue. The current language is not bad either, but 3 is preferable. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, perfectly fine and encyclopedic. Don't see the need to change. RoCo 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 - prefer keeping what it was before, see no need to change. Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is sufficiently neutral (avoids directly calling him a loser) while telling what needs to be told. This is really a minor detail and in the current state it's, as per multiple above, encyclopedic and factually correct. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Lost ≠ loser, linguistically. It may imply loser, but "loser," in addition to its technical meaning implies an emotional category/judgement, that none of the five options contains. Ergo, spurious argument, nay even a "strawman." Tapered (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

*Option 5 ..."to win (the election) with an electoral college majority while the losing candidate won a majority of the popular vote." Further option 1 is intellectually dishonest, grouping the 2 and 3 way anomalies (see one of my previous comments) of 1860, 1912,1992 with 1 other election when the losing candidate did win a majority of the popular vote, and another when the losing candidate outpolled the winner of the electoral vote in a de facto 2 way contest without winning the majority vote. Good grief, am I mistaken or should the options read "sixth?" @Scjessey: Tapered (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The losing candidate in 2016 did not "win a majority of the popular vote". Also, the years to which option #1 refers are 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 (not 1860, 1912, or 1992).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 Avoid anything in the lede that states losing the popular vote. The note of a loss, when the election result was a win, can confuse what is otherwise clearly stated and utterly correct by keeping option 1.Horst59 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Plurality is a more accurate description of the results, as no candidate received a majority vote. It is also more neutral. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Leave as is, I don't see what the problem is and why it needs to be changed in the first place. It's fine the way it is, it's clear, accurate, and neutral. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, just a sidenote, this is one of the most confusing RfCs I've seen in a while, the question keeps being edited, first there were three options and now there are four. It's hard to tell what's going on because of the back and forth side chats in the !votes, just saying. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1. – Because the United States has a constitutional republic it is inaccurate to say a candidate "wins" or "losses" a popular vote count. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Some cannot accept a contrary opinion, I suggest. I am amazed that anybody would thing that "plurality" was a useful word to use. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality is indeed a correct word (among others - majority comes to mind) to use. And anyway, this is exactly what RfC is for - requesting comments from other on potentially controversial changes (or, in this case, whether there should be one or no). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Plurality may be cromulent, but it is uncommon. "Majority" is a much more accessible word. I suggest that those supporting "plurality" wish to obfuscate rather than illuminate. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2016 election was the nineteenth in which someone was elected with less than a majority. Winning with less than a plurality is much more unusual, and that's why we say "plurality" instead of "majority". The word "plurality" is used in thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. Google News currently has tens of thousands of hits for this word. We currently wikilink the word "plurality" in the lead, for anyone unfamiliar with it, so they can learn. Plurality voting is typically covered in high school. Moreover, Clinton won a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.] (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An example of the incredible liberal bias of this article and unacceptable sarcasm is when it states that Trump started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which is said in a mocking, biased and selective manner. Please fix this to use specifics and not be so terribly indoctrinated. Instead, you could add AS A SIDE NOTE:

"He started his business on a "small loan of a million dollars," which he argues is insignificant compared to the multi-billion dollar ambitions he had. Since he was given this loan, the Trump Organisation has grown to an international enterprise."

Or you can use similar language that is acceptably more impartial than what currently exists. trainsandtech (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the language in the BLP that's being criticized is this: "Trump has said that he began his career with 'a small loan of one million dollars' from his father (which 'isn't very much compared to what I've built'), and paid back that loan with interest." Here's the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any neutrality problem with the current language; I see no sarcasm there at all. "Small loan" is Trump's own characterization of the $1-million amount, which he repeated many times, and the article is not using this fact to disparage him. Trump's net worth is estimated at 4.5 billion dollars by Forbes. Turning 1 million to 4.5 billion is no small feat indeed. Imagine your father handed you a generous $10,000 when you graduated, and you managed to turn this "small loan" into a cool $45 million after a few decades. Wouldn't you be entitled to say it was a "small loan" compared to the fortune you created by your own work? — JFG 10:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trainsandtech: Yes, I see your point. In fact, originally it was "small" loan of a million dollars. I added the quotes to include all of that because obviously only quoting "small" seemed POV and intended to be POV. But this is the language Trump used when talking about the loan, because to him a million dollars for a real estate development (the old Commodore Hotel conversion) would have been a small loan. But you are correct, his distractors do use it in a POV way. SW3 5DL (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, but would you say that maybe it would be a good idea to put it back to the way it was originally? trainsandtech (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean back to a "small" loan of a million dollars vs the current longer quote "a small loan of one million dollars"? I think sincerely the longer quote better represents what Trump said. If we only put "small" in quotes, readers don't know who put the emphasis on "small": Trump, journalists, opponents? — JFG 06:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights section

Section wlinks in lead

I plan on changing the Trump-specific wlinks in the lead so that they point to the appropriate sections of this article instead of to other articles. The sections of this article have hatnotes that can take interested readers to other articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your reasoning? That is not standard practice here. We usually have wikilinks throughout articles, including the leads. Barring a very good reason, one that should become part of the MoS and applied to all articles, I see no need to deviate from standard practice. Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that we shouldn't have wikilinks to other articles. We should have them in the lead and also throughout this article. What I'm saying is that, if there's a particular Misplaced Pages article that is summarized in this article per WP:Summary style, and if the summary includes a hatnote linking to the main article that's being summarized, then the lead here ought to have a section wikilink instead of an article wikilink in that particular type of circumstance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, go for it. BTW, I don't know if this would interest you, but I have a different idea (not for use here) which I've tried in a couple of my essays. Take a look at this one: How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead "section references" -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I just took at look at that. That's a great idea that will work on ton of articles. I will keep it in mind going forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. About this! I hope the manual of style is edited accordingly, and I hereby request that you ping me if I can be of any help in that regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that essay a long time ago, but have never tried to get that feature incorporated into our MoS. If there's a chance, then maybe we can move forward and give it a try. Do you think there's a chance? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's worth asking at an MOS talk page before making a formal proposal. I have no idea whether it would fly; some Wikipedians may say that it's already common sense 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time local consensus ought to be allowed to do what they think is appropriate. So if it goes into the MOS then maybe it should be phrased in terms of what is "normally" done or "unless the section is tagged as deficient" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC - LGBT rights

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Survey

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

Discussion

Initial discussion Please see above at #LGBT rights section for initial comments made. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@SW3 5DL: With respect to the removal of the objection (transgender bathroom use), while it is causes egregious and unnecessary pain to transgender children, it's not a significant move in the grand scheme of things, since it is only the removal of an objection in a case concerning a particular state. In essence, it is more about state's rights than an LGBTQ policy. Not enough to promote the concept to a section yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• Comment 2: The question of the RFC is "Should the Domestic Policy] section of this article contain a section for LGBT rights?" Where is the putative wording for the "LGBT rights" section? If someone creates such a cited subsection or paragraph, and posts it on this talk page, then I believe editors can accurately assess whether that proposed text, or something resembling it, should be in the article. Other than that, this RfC question is a little confusing because it seem to also be asking where a section on LGBT rights should be placed. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: mention of same-sex marriage, etc., is made in the domestic policy section. The RfC is attempting to establish if a sub-section title, LGBT rights, should be in the domestic policy section. The argument here seems to want to call it a social issue when clearly it is a civil rights issue. And there seems to be a desire to bury it there without allowing any attention to LGBT rights as civil rights, as there is, for example, on the Barack Obama page here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed early close

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

• Support close for reasons stated in my close statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That the closure has been challenged by two other editors should be plenty enough to demonstrate that this was not the type of uncontroversial closure that is within the scope of an WP:NAC. And that alone pretty well ends the conversation right there. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote?

Why is "incumbent" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President of the United States" will know whether they are on the right page or not. Siuenti (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is "of the United States" necessary in the hatnote? Anyone who sees "President" will know whether they are on the right page or not. The answer is that both "incumbent" and "of the United States" are vital information to confirm who this BLP is about, even though all of those words could conceivably be removed if one were overzealous about being concise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You may know that no other Donald Trumps have been president of anything, but I don't think everyone else does. Siuenti (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguation page doesn't list anyone else who's been president of anything, AFAIK. Isn't the fact that this person is an incumbent "vital" information?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with including "incumbent president of the United States" for perfect clarity. Is there any valid reason NOT to include it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) See below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not that I can think of... I agree, keep it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE says "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking" and "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader" Siuenti (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A hatnote at Andrew Jackson might reasonably read, "This article is about the President of the United States. For other uses, see Andrew Jackson (disambiguation)." Thus "incumbent" is not superfluous here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So people who see "President of the United States" without "incumbent" are going to be wondering if they've got the wrong President Donald Trump of the USA? Siuenti (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. That does not mean that "incumbent" is superfluous, per my previous comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word with the edit summary "no other President of the United States known as Donald Trump". The hatnote should be a tool to help readers navigate to what they actually want to read, but if they accidentally stumble upon this page they won't confuse with another Donald Trump who was POTUS so no need to have the unnecessary word. In a case like George Bush and his son/father I would accept the use of an explanatory word. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I restored it. You should not have removed it while it was under discussion. Since it is longstanding wording, the default is to keep it while we discuss. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove – "Incumbent" is wholly unnecessary in the hatnote, just like "current" was determined by consensus to be wholly unnecessary in the lead sentence. — JFG 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I supported removal of "current" because of the use of "incumbent" in the hatnote. It's entirely standard to have one or the other.. This is the primary distinguishing feature between Trump and all the other presidents of the U.S. If we want to make this into a long, drawn-out discussion, I suppose that another option would be to instead say that he is the president of the United States, and the 45th, but it's very awkward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have trouble following your reasoning here: are you saying that either the lead sentence or the hatnote should have some indication of "current" or "incumbent", because it's otherwise unclear? Think about it this way: we say Trump "is" the president of the United States; all others "were" presidents; present tense is plenty enough to frame him as the current president. — JFG 06:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am saying that, and no we don't say that Trump "is the president of the United States". We say that he "is the 45th president of the United States", and that does not clearly indicate he's the incumbent. So having "incumbent" in the hat is harmless and useful. Incidentally, per MOS:BIO, "If a person is living but has retired, use 'is a former' or 'is a retired' rather than the past tense 'was'." So we shouldn't say Jimmy Carter was the president or even that he was the 39th president (note too that the living former presidents still have the title "president").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Was my preceding comment disruptive or in bad faith? It must have been since it was ignored completely. MelanieN was ignored completely. IP69 was ignored completely. Mandruss was ignored completely. Etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OK revert if you wish and we'll continue the discussion. "incumbent" in the hatnote seems to have gone from "vital" to "harmless and useful". I'll remind you that WP:HATNOTE says "Keep explanations to a minimum; only explain vital information, trusting instead in the article lead to clarify things for the reader." Siuenti (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It was harmless, useful, and vital.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove and rephrase. "Titles such as president and king are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president." (MOS:JOBTITLES.)

A model DAB entry: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. president 1933–1945". (WP:DABNOT.)

"This article is about the incumbent President of the United States." No, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent president of the United States. More concisely, it's about Donald Trump, the incumbent U.S. president. Most concisely and formally, it's about Donald Trump, the U.S. president (or, alternatively, the American president).

But perhaps we ought to draw an overt parallel between Elizabeth II and Donald I, by going with the {{Other uses}} hatnote? ("Elizabeth II A featured article... For other uses, see...") Not: "Elizabeth II This article is about the incumbent Queen of the United Kingdom. For other uses see..." (or the like). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially when the other uses are so much less notable. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the entire hat note.- The lede sentence tells you this man is the sitting president of the United States. WP:COMMONSENSE. Not to mention, the disambig is not necessary. Everything there refers to Donald Trump. I don't see a need to sort out Donald Trump, Jr., since his article is clearly titled as such. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the unrelated Donald L Trump needs to be linked somehow. Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for input at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation Siuenti (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove "incumbent" It's totally unnecessary to have that word there, doesn't add anything. We do need the hatnote though because someone looking for the oncologist, for instance, might not know the middle initial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the entire first sentence as unnecessary. To be useful, the hatnote need only read "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)". Thousands of articles follow that format. Station1 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The short form as in the Elizabeth II example is brilliantly concise and clear, and it seems to be used in many places; I'll apply this now. — JFG 18:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the entire first sentence. A simple {{other persons}} is sufficient. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: The dab page has a lot more stuff than other persons, therefore I applied a simple {{Other uses}}, which seems to me the simplest and most elegant solution on hand. — JFG 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I agree a simple {{Other uses}} is just fine. Additional verbiage is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey about lead

The hatnote and lead paragraph:

For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.

• Support. This is fine. One-sentence paragraphs are bad form. That said, I also support keeping "incumbent" in the hatnote if the lead paragraph continues to omit that he is the current president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the vital information is where it belongs. Siuenti (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• SupportStatus quo Whatever is in the article seems just fine, per above... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Current consensus version of the lead sentence was debated at length and firmly established, see #Current consensus, item 11. No new developments warrant a change. — JFG 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support hatnote per WP:DABNOT. "The name only is sufficient in FDR (disambiguation) (for example, to distinguish the president from a flight data recorder)." Oppose lead paragraph for syntax (lack of parallel structure) and lack of conciseness. Better:

  For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization.

  Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS and the comment by Anythingyouwant we ought to minimize the number of single-sentence paragraphs. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Minimize and eliminate are not synonymous, and 1 is about as minimized as we can get. Very sparing use of single-sentence can be viewed as a good thing from a readability standpoint, not unlike the principle that mixing sentences of different length is a good thing. If there is any place for a single-sentence paragraph, it's the first paragraph in the article. I don't disagree with your entire !vote, necessarily, just that relatively minor point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't like that version because it doesn't make clear he is the president now. The 45th is what makes it ambiguous, I suggest putting it in brackets for clarity. This would also avoid it looking like one long link instead of two. Siuenti (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  We've been here before, at least twice. The verb "is" is present tense. We don't say that Barack Obama is the 44th president. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  I do. He is still "President Obama" and he is still the 44th. Why you folks decline to insert a harmless word of clarification is beyond me, even if you (mistakenly) think it's unnecessary. As Dervorguila has shown (perhaps inadvertently), the custom at Misplaced Pages is to be clear about this (see Obama, GW Bush, QEII, etc.). And User:Mandruss already said above that, "'incumbent' is not superfluous here" regarding the hatnote, so I really don't understand how it could be non-superfluous in the hatnote but superfluous in the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  The difference is that the hatnote does not (and cannot) contain the present-tense verb "is". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  MOS:BIO forbids us to use "the past tense 'was'" for any of the living former presidents. And anyway, User:Mandruss, each one of the living former presidents retains the title "president". See also here: "In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it’s acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former President Jimmy Carter as either 'President Carter' or 'Mr. Carter.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Addressing Obama as "Mr. President" is a completely different thing from saying he "is" the 44th president. Anyway, see my !vote below, which rationale I believe outweighs any of this. We are quibbling about things that have precious little connection to reader value. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  User:Mandruss, According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". I could go on and on with further quotations like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  That's not what I mean by "really compelling new argument" in my !vote. Do you dispute that there are likely signifiicant problems with important things like neutrality and verifiability, in this and other articles, that are being neglected because so many editors are tied up in tunnel-vision debates about minutiae like a single word in a sentence that has a clear consensus? If you do, you're wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not telling readers he's the current president is a problem worth discussing. Unfortunately it seems we also have to discuss whether or not it's worth discussing. Siuenti (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately that is the case, since that's the vastly larger and more important issue. It's the entire point of having the consensus list in the first place, and those of us who have been around since its inception have witnessed its very real, tangible benefits firsthand. As far as I can tell, most of the regulars here appreciate those benefits. We understand that it's a trade-off, but we feel it's a good one. Editors at other articles are free to disagree at those articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's quite mind-boggling that anyone would think it's unimportant to say in the lead that he is the current POTUS. This article will never be a good article much less a featured article if it omits such critical information that has been presented in similar BLPs (GW Bush, B Obama, QEII). And there have always been ways to include this information that would have completely addressed the concerns of both sides, e.g. by saying he has been in office since January 2017. This intransigence and unwillingness to seek compromise is very worrisome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The question is whether to mention that in the hatnote and the lead. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise? It's been in the hatnote for months. Now several editors want to completely delete from the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Trump is the current POTUS. Please see Not My Presidents Day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that the discussion is only to delete it from the hatnote. I used and, as in whether we should have it in both the hatnote and the lead or merely just the lead. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Emir of Misplaced Pages, I think you're mistaken. The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States." That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". So, the discussion is now about whether both the hatnote and the lead paragraph should exclude that Trump is currently in office as president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11. There is no consensus on the hatnote, and we haven't spend a huge amount of editor time discussing that. Make a proposal for a hatnote by itself, and my oppose will likely become a support. If that gains a clear consensus, it will be added to the list. Moral of the story: Smaller proposals make smaller targets and are therefore more likely to gain consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus 11 is subject to change like any other consensus. I am really surprised that you want to keep consensus 11 the way it is for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, and I do not believe that's how Misplaced Pages is supposed to operate. Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote. That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

for apparently no other reason than to prevent it from being changed, - That is not...even...close to an accurate statement of my position on consensus 11. I think I articulated it fairly thoroughly and clearly. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You said, "I'm opposing only because the proposal as written seeks to replace consensus 11." If I misunderstood that comment, so be it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Those 13 words were not intended to fully represent my other 240 words on the subject in this thread. Nor could they. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion about survey

Several people have suggested removing "incumbent" from the hatnote, and several people have suggested keeping it there. So we are properly considering a compromise that would tweak the lead paragraph and remove "incumbent" from the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, why do you oppose saying in both the hatnote and the lead paragraph that Donald Trump is the incumbent or current president? Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States, and he still carries the title of president. As I read your proposed version, Donald Trump might be out of office just like Carter. It is very standard at Misplaced Pages to say that the current president is the current president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Compare with FA Elizabeth II: "For other uses, see Elizabeth II (disambiguation). Elizabeth II ... has been Queen of the United Kingdom ... and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of 12 countries..." Also with GA George W. Bush: "For other people named George Bush, see George Bush (disambiguation). George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States. He served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 until 2000..." And with FA Barack Obama: "...For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation). Barack Hussein Obama II ... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States. The first African American ... to serve as president, Obama is a member of the Democratic Party." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, if it was okay to say "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President" (emphasis added), and likewise for Obama, then why are you opposing any mention (either in the hatnote or the lead paragraph) that Trump is the current or incumbent president??? Your draft in green completely omits that Trump is the current or incumbent president, right???Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Nonetheless, I do think we could all live (however unhappily) with "Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality and politician and the 45th and current president of the United States. From 1971 to 2017 he was the chairman and president of The Trump Organization."

So, yes, we could use "...and current..." But we don't need to. Misplaced Pages could say "She is ... the current queen of 12 countries..." But it chooses not to.

I'm willing to support either version. Let's just go with the consensus on this one. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla, the QEII lead paragraph very clearly indicates that she is currently the Queen: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952" (emphasis added). Yet you seem to be saying that it would be fine if we omit any such indication in the hatnote and lead paragraph of the Trump BLP that he is still in office as president. If the consensus is to leave this vital fact out of the hatnote and lead, then I'm not going to edit-war about it, but it seems exceedingly silly, IMHO. I am not insisting on the word "current" or the word "incumbent". It would be equally okay to say that Trump has been in office since January 2017. But to completely omit that he is now in office strikes me as odd and inappropriate, and completely different from all the examples you cite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I should emphasize that I can live with "... 45th and current president of the United States..." And this construction does eliminate the WP:SEAOFBLUE problem. But neither construction is inappropriate. And neither one is odd. (It may however seem that way if you've been working on the article too long!) ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The current sentence is actually badly constructed ("Donald John Trump ... is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States.") because the items in the list are different (indefinite and definite). Consider "X is an A,B, and the C"... does that seem right to you? One possibility would be "...television personality and politician serving as". Siuenti (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: You stated above, "Certainly, putting into the lead paragraph that Trump is the incumbent is appropriate, and indeed more appropriate than putting it into the hatnote. That said, I support it in the hatnote if people keep excluding it from the lead." But the lede sentence is in the present tense of the verb 'to be.' It says, "is" which makes him the current/incumbent president. We really only need a disambig line. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead paragraph now says Trump "is...the 45th President of the United States." That does not say or imply that he is the incumbent. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and they've said it about Ronald Reagan, too. You cannot use old sources to suggest these past-presidents are still president because a source uses what number they were. Misplaced Pages doesn't say they are presently president in their articles.It says he's the 45th. . SW3 5DL (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Were the four sources that I just linked to published after Carter and Clinton left office? Why yes, they were. I grow weary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use incumbent, that's fine, but I'd support @Anythingyouwant: For grammar's sake, use this Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th, and current, President of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald

The Donald redirects here and not to /r/The_Donald, which in common speak is referred to as just The Donald. Should we mention this in the hatnote, redirect, or something else entirely? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support redirecting The Donald to the reddit forum, which is probably primary topic for this expression in this day and age vs the 1990s. — JFG 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Universally acceptable text (?)

The comments above represent a classic consensus-building discussion, "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". The following text appears to more-or-less incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns:

For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation). Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States.

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

• I now believe we should omit "This article is about..." wording in the hatnote. I originally supported keeping it but I see that it is not used in other articles about presidents, not even those where disambiguation is necessary like John Adams or George Bush. I think we have enough of a consensus here that I think we can go ahead and remove it.

I always preferred saying "current" president in the lede sentence, but we have discussed that many times here and I have been outvoted. Consensus was repeatedly to leave it out; see consensus #11 above. There is no way we can change that with a little add-on like this to another discussion. It would require a full RfC, and IMO we have had enough of those and should continue to leave it out as per previous consensus - and move on to more important matters. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to eliminate "current" and "incumbent" from both the hatnote and the lead paragraph. You do, User:MelanieN?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I see about two-to-one in favor of reducing the hatnote to a simple "for other uses...". which I think is enough to implement that. I see enough disagreement about whether to put "incumbent" or "present" in the lede sentence that it might warrant one more formal RfC discussion, properly formatted and advertised. (I'm not saying we SHOULD do another RfC, just that we can't implement this change without one - due to the multiple previous discussions that gave us consensus #11. I would also say that if a new RfC comes up with the same result as the previous ones, we should put a moratorium on any further discussion of that subject.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: An RfC should be limited to the version above and the one in the article. That seems to be the current choice. But you don't appear to have ivoted yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Anythingyouwant: The George W. Bush (19 January 2009) GA article read: "...is the forty-third and current President of the United States. The Barack Obama (19 January 2017) FA article read: "...is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States..." Neither used the term "incumbent". --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I know, but this BLP need not be verbatim the same as those BLPs. Anyway, I supported your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Consensus #11 notwithstanding, the current language may be corrected to accord with the "parallel structure" requirement given in Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 5.212. I trust you're not arguing that an RfC is required to correct an undisputed syntax error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that Misplaced Pages editing is governed by CMoS, you're seriously mistaken. Even if our MoS endorses that particular point, it's still a nit that doesn't outweigh the "consensus 11" arguments, and our MoS is not the last word, ever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

@Dervorguilla: See my Oppose at #Survey about lead and my comments in the threaded discussion just above that, beginning at 08:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC). As far as I can tell, JFG, MelanieN, and SusanLesch basically concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Is your most important concern that "we should leave well enough alone and spend our limited time on things that haven't already been discussed to death"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Yes. I guess you could say that's my only concern. But it's larger than this immediate question; it's about the role of the consensus list, and maybe we need a consensus about that. For now, however, we have to re-debate that over and over again, and I think JFG, MelanieN, and possibly Scjessey have been with me fairly consistently, to wit:
We don't have the time to address everything, so we have to set priorities and let some of the smaller things slide. We need to say that the six discussions on the first sentence are enough, until that sentence becomes patently false. If we discover that his birthdate is stated incorrectly, we can speedily amend consensus 11. If the United States changes its name to Divided States during his presidency, we can fix that. But we don't wish to repeatedly resurrect first-sentence debates about whether it should say "politician", whether people really need to be told that he is currently in office despite constant news coverage about him from virtually every news outlet on the planet, and so on. This line of thinking originated in the interminable debates about the infobox photo, and many of us said: "Enough. Not worth this much time. Stop. WP:IAR trumps WP:CCC in this case." That thinking has persisted. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: WP:IAR recommends, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." WP:CCC doesn't appear to prevent us from improving this article. And check out the TRUMP project page, where Objective #4 calls for "correcting every grammatical error (big or small)" in this and related articles. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have stated my reasoning and I am unconvinced by yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dervorguilla. In fact, at this point, consensus has changed. I've previously supported not using 'current' based on the logic that the verb form "To be" in present tense was 'is,' and that should be enough. But now I see the distinction because previously nobody mentioned that the same verb is used for past-presidents because they are numbered. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• There are lots of valid opinions and arguments in this discussion; however it has been somewhat muddled by mixing proposed changes to the hatnote and proposed changes to the lead sentence. My current reading of the discussion is that we have rough consensus to keep the shortest hatnote {{Other uses}}, so I would ask the reverting editor Anythingyouwant for permission to switch back to this short version, which I had implemented two days ago. Then we can continue discussing the lead sentence: there is no clear consensus yet, and given the history of controversy about this very sentence, I believe that any consensus change should be cemented by a formal RfC, otherwise it will be repeatedly contested, and waste productive editor time. Accordingly, I am not yet voicing an opinion on the latest proposal by Dervorguilla. — JFG 12:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue of whether to remove from the hatnote that he's the current president is closely intertwined with the issue of whether to insert that same information into the lead paragraph. Trying to discern separate consensuses is unnecessary, difficult, and unwise. I'd be glad to have an RFC that resolves this whole matter all at once. It seems uncommonly silly to turn this BLP into an advertisement for the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements, while turning our list of 1RR exemptions into a list of consensuses that can never change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: a list of consensuses that can never change Again, that's an unconstructive, grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of the position, incorrect on at least two points (I think the correct term is "straw man"). I credit you with having the competence to figure this out if you wish to. Fair debating means expending the effort to really understand your opponents' well-articulated positions (communication requires effort on both ends, and I think I've done my part). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent anything, because it doesn't say anyone said anything. Obviously, no one but me has mentioned here the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements. Relax, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: As far as I can see, nobody is "turning this BLP into an advertisement for the Not My President movement"… What on Earth makes you think that? Simplifying a bludgeoned hatnote has no impact on readers understanding that Donald Trump is the current US President. Let's come to our senses here, please. — JFG 07:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, by omitting from the hatnote and lead that he is the president, we (perhaps inadvertently) cater to that movement, even if we mention lower in the article or in the infobox that he's the president. That may well be entirely coincidental, but even so it is very bad editing on our part (and perhaps I am not hallucinating).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, you are not hallucinating but perhaps ThatGirlTayler is… Her user page says she's a pessimist. No offense meant, Tayler! Actually, could you tell us whether having the hatnote simply say "For other uses, see Donald Trump (disambiguation)" would make you doubt whether he is the current president? — JFG 07:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I do not understand the correlation you are trying to make between being a pessimist and hallucinating, and saying "no offense meant, Tayler" doesn't make it any less offensive. I suggest not taking out your feelings of inferiority out on others and see a therapist instead. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the diagnosis, that'll teach me! Now, what about telling us your opinion on the hatnote text? — JFG 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your question at 07:39, 28 March 2017, User:JFG, if you make the hatnote say that, or make it say Hillary Clinton is the real president, or make it say that JFG is president, none of that would make me doubt that Trump is president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, I wouldn't mix the two in an RfC if one solves the other. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is consensus for this change. We've done changes with three editors agreeing and I can find those diffs. It's obvious that this change needs to be made, it's nothing more than a grammar fix. MelanieN has not ivoted and she previously supported 'current.' Before, the argument was all about present tense and it being obvious that Trump was the current president. But Anythingyouwant has pointed out something we all overlooked. Trump is the 45th president and always will be 45, but right now he's also the 'current' president. Therefore, the argument against clarifying this seems childish. "I don't want to ivote because this sentence has had too many changes."??? That makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear SW3 5DL, please read what I wrote carefully and avoid disparaging the arguments of your fellow editors. — JFG 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear @JFG:, I did read your note. One goes with the other, as Anythingyouwant mentions in his note above. I also noted this curious exchange and your appearance here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: this curious exchange I'm really reaching the limit of my patience with your repeated AGF failures and subtle aspersions on this page. If you are accusing someone of something improper, please go to WP:ANI and say who and what. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Not at all. You might try not reading between the lines. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: What was "curious" about that exchange, and what was the point of mentioning it in this discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:1RR- A friendly word of caution

I have received, and declined a request for page protection based on allegations of edit warring. I'm not going to go digging around the page history to try and sort this out but I do want to gently remind everyone that 1RR is in effect. So there should be no edit warring. If you don't know what WP:1RR or what discretionary sanctions refer to, you really need to STOP and read the two links before making anymore edits on this article. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Punctuate or wikify 45th - to (45th) or 45th

At the moment in the lead sentence 45th is right next to President of the USA, this results in consecutive blue links, which look like just one link. I would like to try fix this either by putting 45th in brackets (45th) or by de-linking the "th", so it looks like 45th Siuenti (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Best practice is to not use brackets and to not link only part of a word. Also, the SEAOFBLUE problem goes away if we change the phrasing to "45th and current president of the United States". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments (RFC) about whether the lead paragraph should say he's the current president

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Assuming that the hatnote is edited to remove that he is the current ("incumbent") president, should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Survey about saying he's the current president

• Support as proposer. This is a sensitive subject, in view of the Not my president and Not My Presidents Day movements. If the lead paragraph merely says that he is the 45th president, that does not indicate he is the current president. After all, reliable sources say that Jimmy Carter is still the 39th president, and Bill Clinton is still the 42nd president. According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". It's true that our talk page includes a list of current consensuses, but that list is merely for exempting people from 1RR, not for making it more difficult to change any consensus. The list of consensuses includes the lead sentence, but removal of incumbency from the hatnote changes the context of the lead sentence, to such an extent that I think a slight modification of the lead sentence is very much justified. This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ("current" vs. "incumbent" vs. "serving since", etc.). Also see the archived good article George W. Bush: "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States." See also the featured article Barack Obama: ""is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Defining characteristic. Current, incumbent, serving all good... or put brackets round (45th). Siuenti (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and superfluous. "Is" is a present tense verb, regardless of how some sources choose to use it (I don't think WP:V applies to grammar). The notion that this is needed because of a "not my president" controversy approaches the absurd, and I use that word very sparingly in discussion. And the first sentence has already received massive discussion, linked at #Current consensus item 11. It's time to call it "good enough", leave it alone, and move on to other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It seems to me that it's common practice on Misplaced Pages, and a good one, to identify officeholders as "current" during their term of office. This is how previous presidents were described when they served, and it provides clarity. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Common practice on Misplaced Pages often violates the Manual of Style. MOS:CURRENT frowns on the use of time-sensitive words like "current". Yes I realize this page is updated, but saying "Trump is President" is clear that he's incumbent. Obama's page doesn't say "Obama is President" any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, but it said "current" when he was president. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE should not be our guiding light here. — JFG 07:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion about saying he's the current president

• Comment. Possible redundancy here. The infobox already says "incumbent", so it isn't exactly necessary that it be included anywhere else. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Muboshgu, not only is this page frequently updated (as you say), but also the RFC question allows "since 2017" which is a formulation explicitly favored by WP:Current. As I already said, this RFC is not about how it should be phrased. If we said "Trump is president" then that would take care of the problem, but we don't say that, do we?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support adding "serving since 2017" to the end of the first sentence of the lead as a way of demonstrating that he is the incumbent. My point is to not use the word "current". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion would be fine with me. I think you ought to change your !vote from "oppose" to "support", and say why. This RFC is not about how to phrase this stuff. The RFC question is "should the lead paragraph be edited to say that he is the current president?" (emphasis added). I explained this in my !vote: "This RFC is not about how exactly it should be phrased ('current' vs. 'incumbent' vs. 'serving since', etc.)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment could you change the word "say" to "clarify" in the proposal so it's clear the specific wording is flexible? Siuenti (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added a note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. @Anythingyouwant: I beg to differ. This RfC is about using the word current. You cannot bait and switch here. Your RfC is now set and you cannot change it. Editors have ivoted based on your original RfC comment. To tell another editor that you are flexible in changing the language is disruptive. Especially as the prior discussion is all about using "the 45th and current president. . ." This is what the prior discussion is about. That's what my ivote is supporting. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not change the RFC question one iota. The only thing in quotes in the RFC question is the word "incumbent" which is given this way as an example of what is meant by the word current: "current ('incumbent')". Feel free to change your !vote if you want. If I say "Mary said that she doesn't want to ride in the car" that obviously does not preclude that Mary said, "I would prefer to not ride in the automobile".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment#NotMyPresident. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - is serving as the 45th President of the United States of America since 2017 is an unambiguous neutral introduction of fact. While it can be said that Obama is the 44th president, it can not be said that he is serving in that capacity. Only one can serve and it is a distinction due this man since January 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs)

That would be fine, User:John Cline. Why not support the RFC proposal which allows this language you've proposed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I do support the proposal, and have made this more clear above.--John Cline (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Cline: If you want that specific language you need to mention that in your ivote. Please read the notes above under the RfC question. The OP's question is misleading. He wants the word, 'incumbent.' He's never going to say, "serving as." If you want that choice, this is not that RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. I have said repeatedly that I will be glad with any language indicating Trump is now in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no justification to assume bad faith of the OP. I believe the RFC is to determine if Donald Trump should be mentioned in the present tense without prescribing the exact prose that will be used if the RFC gains consensus. It is not a question of what "he's never going to say", but what we will collaborate to say if such mention is preferred. I appreciate you mentioning your concern, though I believe it is misplaced.--John Cline (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Cline: The previous discussions never mentioned using loose language in an RfC, but rather, the discussion had narrowed it down to, "is the 45th, and current, president." That was the language that had the most support when the OP made this RfC without previous discussion of what his RfC would say. The whole point of an RfC, and our previous discussions, was to settle on 'specific' language. This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started. I noticed you seemed to like "serving as," and I think that's a good idea, too. That's why I put the note at the top of the article so that editors will be able to voice their choice. The OP is going to have his choice, the rest of us should as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

John Cline is entirely correct. In contrast, it is incorrect to say "This RfC must do that, or there is no point in having it because we're right back where we started." If the RFC wins enough support then we are emphatically not back where we started, because a successful RFC will rule out having a hatnote and lead that both omit the fact that the President of the United States is Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@MelanieN: It would be better to use the reply function and put your comments here and not under ivotes. Editors are coming here to give their comment/opinion. Use the discussion section for your comments about their ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: "is the President" is clear but "is the 45th President" is not, because he will continue to be the 45th President forever. Siuenti (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment use whatever we used for Bush and Obama. It's as simple as that. Sir Joseph 03:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, that would be fine with me, and that's why I supported this RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Current

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Current says

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

Incorrect: He is the current ambassador to ... Correct: As of March 2011, he is the ambassador to ...

Just FYI Siuenti (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another thing the MOS says is

The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007".

Siuenti (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the actual BLP said while she was in office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Another MOS section

Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Statements likely to become outdated (emphasis added):

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How would you feel about "became the 45th President in January 2017"? Siuenti (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, that's ambiguous about whether he remains president. Let's see how the RFC goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

January 20 in lead please

Can we put January 20 somewhere in the lead please? For example, "He became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the presidency" could become "On January 20 he became..." Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It should definitely be somewhere in the BLP, but I think putting it in the body of the article is sufficient. We already say in the lead when he was elected, and most people will assume (correctly) that he took office soon thereafter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC to determine specific language for the lede sentence regarding Donald Trump as president

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.

• Note: This RfC question has changed due to input from other editors.

This is now the only question for this RfC:

• Right now, the lede sentence says, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States."
• Should the lede sentence instead say,

SW3 5DL (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. The sentence in the article right now, is simply too long and omits the one important element that he is the current president. Given the early comments, and because there were no ivotes other than mine, I've changed the question of this RfC and propose this one simple sentence for the lede. It also follows the convention used in Barack Obama's article here, as well as George W. Bush here. Of all the titles ascribed to Donald Trump, the most important, the most relevant, the most immediate, is that he is the current president. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a confusing mess. I lost track of what RfC I was replying to and I hadn't noticed that this one is now proposing to leave out the "long winded list" of other things he is - a list which was strongly debated in previous discussions, and which I think should remain as the product of hard-won consensus. I strongly oppose this proposal, both because it ignores or overturns previous consensus and becaues it leaves out everything he has done or been known for in the first 70 years of his life. And this RfC should probably be aborted as hopelessly entangled with the other current RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort this RfC. Not only does it overlap an existing RfC, but RfCs are a form of dispute resolution only necessary when regular talk page discussion has broken down. Why are editors on this talk page so eager to start RfCs? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort, again – OP reacted to remarks that an RfC with many choices was bound to fail; great. However now the RfC offers only one choice, which happens to be OP's preferred wording, with absolutely no prior discussion among "local" editors about why this wording should be submitted to the wider community. This won't work either, and said wider community will get tired of answering ill-prepared questions. RfCs are not a magic wand to set up the debate exactly the way you want it framed. — JFG 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. The two wordings provided are essentially identical but the current one "reads" slightly better. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please remember to post your questions to other editors here using the reply function and not post under their ivote, to avoid disrupting the Survey. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort. How in the world can anyone make sense out of this RfC? Is this "discussion" section supposed to be about the reworded question? Is the discussion section below about the previous choices here, which are now nowhere to be seen, or is it about the other concurrent RfC? What are we even supposed to be responding to? This is a hopeless mess. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: And the real problem is that the sentence in the article right now omits the most important fact about Donald Trump and that is he IS the 45th and current president. The old consensus is gone. That is why there are so many discussion threads about the lede sentence. It is the mess. Too much verbiage. This RfC seeks to solve that. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: That RfC will only compound the problem. This RfC seeks to eliminate the problem. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Abort. The previous question is still the one transcluded at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies etc so the discussion isn't as advertised. Siuenti (talk)

It seems fine now. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, the first sentence does not include "is the current president." It also does not follow the usual convention on wikipedia which is to start off with the most important fact that this person is currently the president of the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No, SW3, that is NOT the usual convention. In fact we've never done it that way. The previous articles about current presidents said "is an American politician and (or "who is") the XXth and current president of the United States". That's because "politician" was their defining description; in the case of Reagan and Eisenhower, who had another earlier defining job, it says "an American politician and actor who was the 40th president of the United States" and "an American politician and Army general who served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961." That's the case with Trump; his "definition" includes businessperson, television personality, and politician, as the result of long discussion about what positions to include. This is Misplaced Pages 101: the purpose of the lede sentence is to define what the subject IS: a musician, an artist, a baseball player, a physicist. The particular position they hold at the moment is not what they ARE. So our convention is to define who they are, and THEN add their current important position: "Rex Wayne Tillerson (born March 23, 1952) is an American energy executive, civil engineer, and diplomat who is the 69th and current United States Secretary of State." "Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is an American businessman and politician who has been the 45th Governor of Florida since 2011." "John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is an American politician who currently serves as the senior United States Senator from Arizona." --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: And I would have just said, politician, because even Trump says he's one now. That means, in the now, right now. He's not a businessman anymore. He's a politician and the 45th and current president of the United States and the sentence should say that. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so now you want to say "is a politician and the president"? Up to now you have been arguing, and this RfC proposes, to eliminate all the job titles and say only "is the president". Yet another reason why this RfC needs to be aborted. Even you, the proposer, can't decide what you are proposing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If a unanimous-minus-one abort vote among this page's regulars (the one being the OP) can't produce either a SNOW close or a withdrawal, I don't know what would. Sigh. It's unfortunate that the OP is unable to defer to such an overwhelming opinion. Since there are no remaining uninvolved regulars, maybe somebody should post at WP:AN. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you want to go to AN, by all means. But they will see I am trying to sort this. You're not. See the winged device headed your way. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: The clear overwhelming opinion is that this is beyond sorting, and you seem to be blind to that fact. I'm not impressed by your boomerang threat, nor worried. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you believe that is needed, go post there. This is a 'discussion' section where things do get sorted. I won't respond again, unless you've got a sentence suggestion. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'm simply taking into account your comment and making suggestions. Please respond to the suggestions. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: What about this as it separates the sentences so there's no long-winded element:

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I like this version (I am also OK with the other very similar versions: "is" and "who is"). In fact I believe this two-sentence version was in the article at one time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: There's also this suggestion, but I think it makes Trump sound like a waiter serving fries in the Oval office:

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3, another version now? Please voluntarily shut down this RfC. Do it now. Withdraw the RfC designation. It is no longer an RfC (if it ever was). It has become a general discussion, with multiple versions proposed (including several by you), and there is no way for people to respond to it in a normal support-oppose way, or even to keep up with all the added new versions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Go with the flow here and offer comments. I will deal with the RfC, but right now I'd like some input here before doing so. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Dervorguilla, and MelanieN: Or, this:

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: btw, NONE of these sentences were crafted by me. I've taken them from this page written by Dervorguilla, JFG, and someone else, forgot. NOT me. Thanks for that AGF, admin Melanie. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Previous question discussion

• Note: From the comments and the suggestion to abort, and since I am the only one who ivoted, and the bot notices have not gone out, I amended the RfC. The problem seems to be with the long winded list of things Trump is, omits the one thing is really is right now, and that is the current president. Since another RfC is trying to determine if we should call him the current president, and it has enormous early support, then we should just straight out say it. Obama's page did. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• I prefer leaving the hatnote and lead as they are now and have been for months. But if the hatnote is edited so that it no longer says he is the current president, then all of these four options would be acceptable. I like option 3 best, but the others would be fine too. Also, I would get rid of the commas in all four options.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1. This is the style used on Misplaced Pages, including G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. It is concise and says it best. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Option 5, per MOS:COMMA (don't use unneeded commas), WP:SEAOFBLUE, and the several analogous articles cited above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort – An RfC with multiple choices is doomed to produce no consensus. I'm sure several editors (me included) would like to propose yet another slightly different version. This cannot work. Better have an informal discussion to weed out the best choices, and if no consensus is achieved in there, go to RfC with a binary choice among two previously-discussed versions. There is no deadline. — JFG 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - None of the options uses English-language syntax (which requires parallel construction). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort because so many options will probably result in no consensus for any one of them, in which case we might get stuck with a hatnote and lead that nowhere mention that trump is the president. We will need to discuss and figure out what the top two options are, and then maybe do an RFC if it's really necessary at that point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort train wreck. SW3 5DL, I see abort opinions from Scjessey, MelanieN, Siuenti (albeit with a poor rationale, since the bot will eventually update the listings), JFG, Dervorguilla, Anythingyouwant, and myself. Your best move at this point is to withdraw this RfC before any more time is wasted in it. Maybe you can guess why I'm not just SNOW aborting it myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In terms of getting consensus, looking for the option with least opposition might be better than looking for the one with most support. Siuenti (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: How do you mean? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• These four options all fail on one point, they each relegate Trump's presidency to the forth position of a serial list instead of culminating precursors into who Donald Trump most certainly is. The options read as if the ellipsis transitions with is when it actually transitions with and. Therefore, the RFC can only achieve saying some thing in effect; that: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States instead of: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, and politician who is the 45th and current President of the United States just as what was properly written of Barack Obama, saying: ... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States. I can not support any verbiage in the Donald Trump lead that places his presidency within a serial list.--John Cline (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Again an RfC with many choices is doomed to fail from the start. @SW3 5DL:, assuming you're the OP (it's unsigned), haven't you learned this from prior attempts? (especially seeing you say earlier An RfC should be limited to the version above and the one in the article.)— JFG 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Would you have any concerns about this phrasing? "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States." --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's you? Anyway, I was willing to go along with that "current" phraseology, but Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Statements_likely_to_become_outdated does seem to indicate it might not be the best way, because "current" kind of connotes "for the time being". But maybe it's our best choice notwithstanding the MOS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We must say that he is president. And he is, in normal sense, the current president. There is nothing wrong with it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, and the first sentence in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Statements likely to become outdated says: "except on pages updated regularly", this page will update regularly so is not discouraged at all by our MOS.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• "...is..." seems to have it covered, to me. "Is" implies "currently." To make it truly comparable to the ex-presidents' articles, you'd have to say, "and is currently serving as the 45th President..." That's even longer than option 4. There's no need to make it that complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM2KX (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not correct. The earlier presidential articles did not say "serving as". They said "Barack Obama is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Doesn't Option 1 already say, 'Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States.' Just without the commas? So you're saying, that without the commas, it's correct syntax? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the first place, setting the disputed phrase off with commas is incorrect. It should say "...the 45th and current president" (no commas) as has been done with presidential articles before this. (I am baffled why there is so much resistance to doing this the exact same way we did it for the previous two presidents.) In the second place, you are describing the opening sentence incorrectly; as John Cline pointed out, it does not say "is the 45th...", it says "and the 45th..." Until all the RfCs started we were doing this in several ways: one-sentence or two-sentence. They differed only slightly. There were two one-sentence versions: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th and current President of the United States." or "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician who is the 45th and current President of the United States." The two-sentence version was "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is the 45th and current President of the United States."

As for my own preference, I definitely think we SHOULD include some way of indicating he is the current president. My first choice is something using "current". My second choice is "incumbent". I don't like "serving as" for reasons I explained above; it suggests we can't quite bring ourselves to admit that he IS the president. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Yes, the syntax is correct. But "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States" ≠ "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946), an American businessman, television personality, and politician, is the 45th and current President of the United States". 17 words ≠ 24 words. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IPA?

If no-one objects, I'd like to add the IPA pronunciation (US: /ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) to the lead. This is helpful for readers without a full grasp of English and appears to be the standard – see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. AFAIK this is a MOS requirement for FA/GA anyway. Cheers, Laurdecl 06:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You ought to read through the prior discussion. Also, here's an audio file.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I did not realise there had been a discussion. However, it was a fair while ago and before he became a household name. It's true that pronunciation is fairly simple, but then so is "Hillary Clinton", though there is an IPA in her article. I feel like it would be beneficial for foreign readers. Laurdecl 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Rodham isn't quite so straightforward as Hillary or Clinton. Anyway, please brace yourself, because I am now pinging User:Dervorguilla. 🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose these are all common English words/name. It goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Pronunciation if not technically the letter. I wouldn't mind if you put the IPA somewhere outside the lede. Siuenti (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of IPA being added to any article where there's even the tiniest bit of doubt about pronunciation. I know accents can (and do) alter the pronunciation of "Donald", but I'm not aware of any alternative pronunciations of "Trump". I don't see where the harm is in adding it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The harm is that it inserts something which is both unnecessary and incomprehensible to the majority of readers between the topic of the article and the most vital information about that topic. Siuenti (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Could it not help foreign readers who don't have a great grasp of English? I could imagine this happening with such a popular article. It's not overly distracting and seems to work fine in Clinton's and Obama's article. Also, this isn't an RfC. Laurdecl 12:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite superfluous in this case; both hist first name and his surname are extremely common words, and IPA would arguably break the flow of the lead sentence. — JFG 12:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes it could help foreign readers, however the lead sentence is not a good place for distracting things, even if not "overly" distracting. The pronunciation of "Rodham" and "Obama" are not obvious so IPA is a good thing for those articles. Are there featured articles which provide IPA for common names? Do you object to putting the pronunciation in, say, a footnote? Siuenti (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that for, e.g. "Angela Merkel", whose name is surely mispronounced by many English-speaking readers, so... SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should? Laurdecl 13:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Angela Merkel's name is mispronounced by just about everyone. "Angela" should be pronounced AHN-GAY-LUH, but it is usually pronounced AHN-GUH-LUH or (worse) AN-JELL-UH. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Angela_Merkel#Pronunciation Siuenti (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think your arguments against are flawed. IPA is very common in BLPs, and since it would appear within the parentheses of that lede sentence (where it always does) I don't think it is distracting at all. The "incomprehensibility" argument is absurd - we shouldn't "dumb down" Misplaced Pages for those who don't understand an internationally-recognized pronunciation system. And as I indicated earlier, I've heard "Donald" spoken as differently. Specifically, I've heard "DOH-NULD" and "DOO-NAHLD" from non English speakers, which are both wrong. I'm not saying we must include IPA, but I am saying there is no harm in doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a footnote be more distracting? I can't see any harm in including the IPA and if it benefits readers – even a small number – IMO it is a good idea. Laurdecl 13:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: The IPA works best on multi-syllable words, like Barack Obama. As Scjessey pointed out, Donald, which is just 2 syllables, could be mispronounced, but Trump can only be said one way in any language. And while I'm sure we're all sensitive to the difficulties of non-English speakers, it seems the editors here don't want to include it at this time, including me. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN says to "include pronunciation only for the words that need it" (illustration: Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley), not for common English words (like john and trump) or a word whose pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling".

Donald is nearly as common a name as Thomas -- and its pronunciation is surpassingly more apparent from its spelling. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. I've heard a lot of different pronunciation, especially from Americans and their irritating accents (no offence). It varies from DOHN-ALD to DAHN-OLD to DUH-NULD. I can't really see the harm in including it. Laurdecl 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, this fact actually detracts from adding an "official" IPA pronunciation. People from different countries and regions have various accents and will pronounce Donald pretty much as they please, and that's absolutely fine. — JFG 05:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

These are common English words/names, and so I would oppose including IPA here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ 05:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: We're not going to be adding a pronunciation.

1. Because clutter.

2. Because WP:PRON says "consider that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary when thinking of adding a pronunciation to an article".

3. Because "Donald McKinley Glover (/ˈɡlʌvər/)", "Donald Ervin Knuth (/kəˈnuːθ/)", "Donald Henry Pleasence (/ˈplɛzəns/)", et al.

4. Because of the fallacy of appeals to false authority. "False authority occurs chiefly when writers offer themselves ... as sufficient warrant for believing a claim." (Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument".) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you say so then there's nothing I can do. I will try to not present a viewpoint in any discussion in future, lest I be seen as appealing to myself. I wasn't aware we were having an "argument", I prefer to think of exchanging views as a discussion. As for fallacies, nice strawman with 4 and 2, since I'm not advocating adding this to every article; and a nice red herring with 1, since you don't seem to realise how common IPA is. Laurdecl 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also--

5. Because you've yet to cite an article beginning in "Donald" where the editors appear to have believed that they needed to give its pronunciation.

6. Because I've been offered no authoritative evidence or logical argument for believing that some nondyslexic English-speaking Americans say "DAHN-OLD TRUMP". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) 06:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote is based on what I've heard. You haven't cited any articles that say "Donald is nearly as common a name as Thomas" nor that the pronunciation of Trump is "apparent from its spelling". This isn't going anywhere – I believe that the IPA could help some readers and should be included, but if I'm outnumbered that's fine. Just a proposal, not an argument. I enjoyed the dyslexic jab though. Laurdecl 06:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I must remind editors the English language Misplaced Pages is for all speakers of English, not just Americans (who arguably don't speak English anyway). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I resemble that remark. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Universities in infobox

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

A clear consensus would go a long way toward stabilizing that field, and I agree it would be worthwhile. But an attempt should be made to get there in normal discussion before starting an RfC. I propose doing that right here, but I'll hold off !voting since (1) I'm not aware of any community-level discussion on this, and (2) I don't have a strong opinion. As you say, there are several questions complicating the issue: Should it show Fordham? Should it say UPenn, Wharton, or both (Wharton is the college at UPenn)? Should it show the BS degree from Wharton in parentheses? I suppose we would have to !vote each question separately and then assemble a composite consensus from the results. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could have separate discussions on including BS degree, which schools, etc., or we could present options like "Fordham + UPenn", "Fordham + Wharton", "Wharton + BS in parantheses", etc. But doing separate questions and assembling a composite consensus seems like a better idea. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll go ahead and set that up in separate subsections. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Show Fordham?

As Fordham University. !Vote Yes or No.

• Yes Mandruss makes a good point about the definition.SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but only if we mention in parentheses that he transferred out. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  That will likely be read as a No, since that is excessive detail for this infobox field. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Would mentioning Fordham at all be excessive since he transferred out? He didn't graduate from there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @SW3 5DL: - {{Infobox officeholder}} gives no guidance on that. Merriam-Webster alma mater says: "a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated". According to them, then, Fordham could be included. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, and that's what this subsection will, with any luck, decide. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes per dictionary definition of alma mater. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: You don't think it will be a bit crowded there? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  (shrug) Yes + (Both or Combined) would be a large field value, sure. I'll switch to No if the No trend continues. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I changed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Good point. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Show UPenn, Wharton, both, or combined as one link?

Wharton is the school at UPenn where Trump received his BS degree. !Vote:

• UPenn - University of Pennsylvania
• Wharton - The Wharton School
• Both - University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School)
• Combined - Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

--

• Wharton. But at the moment, the info box seems to have the correct format. It mentions both. So if that is a choice, I'd keep it as is. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  That will be read as a Both, not a Wharton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But if most just want Wharton, I'm fine with that, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wharton. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Wharton. People that care will know what Wharton is. Objective3000 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @SW3 5DL, Emir of Misplaced Pages, and Objective3000: Please re-check your !votes after revision of options. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Both – And I don't think "The" is necessary. Just "University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School)" — JFG 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's a tie, i would also support Wharton only. — JFG 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Show BS in parentheses?

As (BS). !Vote Yes or No. Although this is sometimes made "small", this would not be done here per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph (this is an accessibility issue).

• Yes, regardless of if we choose to mention that it was in economics. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - per Emir of Misplaced Pages. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• No – Exact degree reached is only interesting for academic people. Again, details belong in the prose. — JFG 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't think most people know Wharton has undergrad degrees. And if Fordham is also mentioned, the assumption would be a grad degree. Prefer (B.S. in Econ) as the college makes a point of including this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Thank you for considering accessibility. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They too serve who wait tables

Does saying someone has served as President of the United States make them sound like a waiter serving pizza? If so, it's a widespread problem, e.g. Richard Nixon, James Garfield, Gerald Ford, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama... all the POTUSes (POTI?) I looked at. Siuenti (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually Donald Trump too, just not in the lead... "Obama's... eligibility to serve as President." Siuenti (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Let the dictionary be your guide. I'm less concerned with what something might sound like to some readers than what is correct English. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Self service", more like. It is meaningless jargon used by the rich and powerful to make themselves feel even more superior. Like "giving back", and "passionate about", and about every other phrase uttered by Hillary Clinton. If you don't need to work to put food on the table, it's "serve", if you do need to, then it's "work" - work to make the rich wealthy enough to not have to work but merely "serve". Why not just use "was"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does make them sound like a waiter. More importantly, remember WP:OSE. Also, as Tiptoethrutheminefield points out, self-service. Also it reminds me of a sign I saw in 2003. "Now proudly serving French fries since 2003," sign in Paris cafe window in answer to France's opposition to Bush's Iraq invasion and the Republican response naming them Freedom fries. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean the bit of WP:OSE which says "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. " Siuenti (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense. But, what is the change you are suggesting? Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If "serve" is undesirable, it should be taken out from these articles. Otherwise people shouldn't object to something like "has served as the 45th President since 2017" or "who is serving as the 45th president" merely because they contain the word "serving" Siuenti (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors are free to object to anything and everything here, and often do. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, editors are free to object to things they shouldn't object to. But it would be helpful if they didn't. Siuenti (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's an opinion about what they should and should not do and not based in fact. The sun should rise in the morning, because that's a scientific fact. But should an editor agree with you about something? That's called the tyranny of the should, implying fact where none exists. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the kind of tyrant who says "it would be helpful if people didn't do stuff" Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Siuenti. I don't think the verb makes people all sound like waiters and waitresses. All kinds of people serve as all kinds of things. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Civil servants (note the term servants) and soldiers regularly state as a badge of honor that they serve the country. I don’t see how this can be construed as a negative. Besides, what’s wrong with serving pizza? I like pizza. Objective3000 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have served my country and pizza. Occasionally at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are a credit to your country. Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And to pizza..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A question for people who support and/or object to "serve" : would you be ok with something like "has been the (45th) President of the United States since January 2017". We can say "is serving as the 45th President" but we can't say "is being the 45th President". People (including myself) oppose "is the 45th President" on the grounds of ambiguity. Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

An explanation helps there. If you don't like 'is the 45th president." But why is it ambiguous? He will forever be the only 45th president. You might think of it that way. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly why it doesn't convey the information that he is now the president. Siuenti (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But it does give him his historical number, which is also very important. He is the 45th, and current President of the United States." Or, "He is the incumbent, and 45th President of the United States." Although incumbent is mentioned in the Infobox. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We can’t spoon feed readers. I think we can assume readers haven’t just come out of a coma or cryogenic chamber. Pardon me for saying so; but seems there’s rather an unusual amount of nitpicking in this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and more. I had to engage on talk to get a run on sentence shortened. When you have to get consensus for copyedits. . .SW3 5DL (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if there was less "nitpicking" we wouldn't have to go through so much discussion to make improvements. "Everyone knows that" and "it makes him sound like a waiter" are however not nitpicking at all but vital points that must be defended to the end. Siuenti (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this nitpicking. I do call it obsessive focus on minutiae. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The original meaning is to provide a service to someone. Waiters serve customers, the President serves the people of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The original meaning is to be a servant, from the French servir, "to serve", which originates from the Latin servus, a slave. To apply it to a person in a position of ultimate power is a sort of reverse puffery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The word citizen originally means “inhabitant of a city”. Clearly not applicable to this article. We are not in Rome – so we need not do as the Romans. Objective3000 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Citizens in city cafes serve customers French fries. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, the United States is a republic, not a monarchy, and ultimate power rests in the people, who are served by elected and appointed officials. In a monarchy, the people serve the sovereign. I don't know if Trump is planning any major changes of that sort, but none have been made yet. TFD (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The US actually modeled itself on the Roman Empire, just look at its banknotes, the architecture of its governmental buildings, its seals of office, it even has a senate. And it has an Empire-like pyramidal power structure with those at the top able to appoint or dismiss officials below them, based on their allegiance to those at the top. Monarchs do "serve", they consider themselves divinely appointed and so serve God's interests on earth: that is, ultimately, their sole claim to power (though being lucky in war / peace / or popularity helps maintain that power). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors: I would like to acknowledge the contributions of our own server, "En", whx has been faithfully serving the people, the officials, and the sovereign since 2001. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! A jolly good servant we have indeed! — JFG 07:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion sounds like ridiculous nitpicking. "Serving as" is an extremely common way to introduce the role of a civil servant or an elected official, worldwide. It is not in the least disparaging and I for one failed to connect this expression with pizza or French waiters until somebody made this point here. — JFG 06:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So @JFG: do you object to saying that Trump is serving as the 45th President? Siuenti (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not at all: I even used this formulation in my preferred wording above: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. — JFG 12:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield and SW3 5DL: you do still object to this wording? 12:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest "....personality and politician, and, since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States". i.e., essentially what it is right now. Having the date there is arguable, but it is an important detail to have in the lede somewhere given that the length of time in office is so significant.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks good to me (apart from consecutive blue links meh). I wonder how @JFG: feels, hopefully not too objectionable. Siuenti (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, clumsy, too many commas. — JFG 16:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggest the discussion be hatted before we start talking about anchovies. Objective3000 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is not going to change without RfC consensus to change it. As you know, I oppose such an RfC on cost-benefit grounds. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to determine the acceptability or not of the word "serving" before any Rfc rather than during one. Siuenti (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To what end? "Serving" is ok per dictionary. Not "serving" is also ok. Wasting time on pointless distinctions, not ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To the end of having a lede sentence with consensus. If I were to say to people "the dictionary says X is OK so your objection is invalid" people might call me a tryant again. Siuenti (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence already has consensus. See #Current consensus item 11. It's not just any old garden-variety consensus, but one that involved massive investment of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You interpret this RfC as showing consensus for the current lead sentence? Siuenti (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No. An open RfC cannot show consensus, since the consensus is determined at close. The consensus of which I speak is embodied in the six discussions linked at #Current consensus item 11. If you read all of that and claim that it does not show consensus for the current first sentence, you will be the first to make such a claim, and that includes all of the editors who have been at this article throughout the entire ordeal process. We are past the point of diminishing returns as to first sentence. In other words, while we might be able to make small improvements, they wouldn't be worth the time that it takes to reach a consensus to make them, diverting attention from more important things. We should always weigh benefit against cost. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus. If there is an RfC on whether or not to have an RfC, I’m opposed. We are nearing WP:STICK territory. Objective3000 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I suggest you get someone to declare that discussion of the lede sentence is closed because "no event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." Siuenti (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, you get someone to declare otherwise. I believe you're in a minority on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary page break

The RfC above is heavily trending towards supporting some mention of Trump being the current president; that's a new event for purposes of determining current consensus. I see no problem discussing potential ways to phrase such a mention in case the RfC trend is not reversed. Hopefully we can reach consensus on a single formulation, which would then be implemented, or on two top choices, which would then need to be exposed to a further RfC… — JFG 16:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh good, another dozen or so editor-hours spent on the first sentence, for marginal subjective improvement. If you think that will be the end of it, you're sadly mistaken as there will always be another Siuenti. But by all means carry on. At least you're speaking with the benefit of historical perspective at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the sentence as is right now, should be a choice. As Mandruss points out, it is a marginal improvement. And while we're on the subject of the content in the lede, 'plurality' should just be eliminated. Why do we even have to mention it in the lede? It's in the campaign section. Why not just say the guy won on January 20 and move on? Nobody likes the damn word and here we are, still stuck with it. Why not have Mandruss just put up a quick survey like he did for the Infobox? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If we could just eliminate this last bit. . .and the fifth elected with less than a plurality of the national popular vote." I think if you put up a quick survey like you did for the Infobox, maybe this time it'll work. Does anybody really care that he is the fifth to lose a plurality? The fifth? Maybe the first, yes, but five? Does anybody recall who came in 5th place in men's freestyle in Rio? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not your guy. The alma mater field did not already have massive editor investment. I decline to participate in any future discussion of the first sentence, beyond !voting to abort any RfCs about it, and the occasional comment in other discussions about it. There will always be just one more "last bit". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for that statement? e.g. show us an article which has always needed one last bit? Siuenti (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: I think he's referring to long experience. So what do you think of the 'plurality?' SW3 5DL (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? That evidence is right here on this page. We've yet to see the end of demands to revisit the first sentence, or of editors' willingness to entertain those demands. Sure, you're willing to be satisfied if we discuss just one more last bit, but what about the next guy's last bit, and the ones after that? Is there some reason we should give you more consideration than we do them? What if we reach a consensus for a change that you like, it gets added to the list, and then somebody else comes along and wishes to discuss changing it back? Are you going to stick around and spend your limited time defending your change indefinitely? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So this person wants to reverse a change that had consensus, they give their reasons and people say "Oh those sound like good reasons, better than the justification for making the change", and it gets changed back with consensus. And then the next person comes along, and their reasons are even better that the guy before's, and they persuade people to change it back again, and there is an infinite supply of new reasons good enough to get people to change their minds from consensus for to consensus against and equilibrium is never reached.Siuenti (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And the minimal improvements, each smaller than the one before, are not nearly worth that time investment, while more important things are being neglected for lack of time and focus. You seem to think that editor time is an infinite resource, like money growing on trees. You have no concept of cost-benefit evaluations. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't feel that telling people he is president now is an important issue, but maybe you can understand why people would think it is. You are saying that people will come along and provide great arguments why it's really, really important NOT to tell people he's president now, and they get consensus for going through this arduous procedure just so people don't get told something all of them allegedly know. Siuenti (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article already tells people he is president now. Unlike you I don't assume that a reader is going to come to the page, read the first sentence, and leave. Actually I think that is extremely unlikely to happen. If it happens ten times during his presidency, those ten readers' continued ignorance about the who the current US president is is not going to be my number one priority. This is what I mean when I say "minimal improvement". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

OK the bit which tells people he is president now is "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016", or is it "incumbent" in the hatnote? Siuenti (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's both. Not to mention "Assumed office January 20, 2017" just below "Incumbent". And that's assuming they never make it past the lead, even to notice the words "Election to the presidency" under "2016 presidential campaign" in the TOC. And all this assumes that the present-tense verb "is" is not really present-tense. Let's review former presidents.
Obama: "Served". Past tense.
Bush2: "Served". Past tense.
Clinton: "Served". Past tense.
Bush1: "Was". Past tense.
Reagan: "Was". Past tense.
Carter: "Served". Past tense.
Ford: "Served". Past tense.
Nixon: "Served". Past tense.
Johnson: "Served". Past tense.
Kennedy: "Served". Past tense.
I'm tired and stopping. Number of former presidents for whom we use a present-tense verb to refer to their presidency: Z E R O. But, according to you, it's critical that we clarify this question for the reader who has lived in a cave since January. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States" is a true statement", how are people supposed to know Misplaced Pages doesn't actually say it? I'm not really concerned about cave-dwellers, more people in remote communities in developing countries. Siuenti (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Obama was the 44th president. He is not any president now, 44th or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So Mandruss has already seen this post but didn't find it "really compelling"

User:Mandruss, According to the Washington Post, and CBS News, "Jimmy Carter is the 39th president of the United States". According to the Washington Post and Variety, Bill Clinton "is the 42nd President of the United States". I could go on and on with further quotations like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: quoting you

Just because something is phrased in present tense doesn't mean it describes the present. It's weird, but writers often use something called "literary present" and "historical present". Likewise, with regard to former officeholders, they are often properly addressed by their former title if it was an office/rank that many people can hold at the same time, like Senator, Judge, Captain, Admiral, General, or Professor. So merely using present tense doesn't necessarily describe the present.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That point has already been countered. While we call retired admirals "Admiral X", we don't say that X is an admiral. We say s/he is a retired admiral. I'm not going to reiterate that point again, and I don't care what your cherry-picked sources say. We are past circular, and I've wasted enough of my time trying to convince you that we are talking about matters not worth the time it takes to reach a consensus to resolve them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: What do you want the lede to say? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anthing which clearly states he is president now, ideally giving Jan 2017 as the start date. My favourites are:

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017

from JFG and

....personality and politician, and, since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States

from Tiptoethrutheminefield.

There seem to be issues with commas and sounding like a waiter, but I don't they would have enough support to overturn a consensus. Siuenti (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, of course they wouldn't be enough to overturn those choices, and commas can be sorted. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we stop discussing the lede?

Plip!

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.

Should we stop discussing the lede because, as Objective3000 puts it, "no event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus"? Siuenti (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC) The current consensus being:

11. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6)

• What? - Do we need a thread asking editors to agree to not discuss something? That's never going to happen, and consensus can change. The existing lede sentence is absolutely fine, does not need alteration, and is currently in the list of "consensus" things at the top of this talk page; however, asking editors to agree not to discuss things is a total non-starter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Abort - I'm considering starting a new thread: Should we stop discussing whether to stop discussing the lead (sentence)? Somebody hat this, please. Enough is enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hang on a sec! Shouldn't we have an RfC to discuss whether or not to close a discussion on whether or not to stop discussing whether or not to stop discussing the exhaustively discussed sentence? That really needs to be discussed first. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm undecided. Let's discuss that. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was satirical humor, lest anybody get the wrong impression and discuss that. I've learned not to assume people can see my tongue lodged firmly in my cheek, no matter how blindingly obvious I think that is. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If this continues much longer, I'm going to start posting images of cute kittens. Objective3000 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

. . .and cute puppies. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Pride_(9103931453)_(cropped).jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

not quite there yet. . .but good effort. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we nominate Donald Trump as a Good Article?

The article Donald Trump has been edited extensively over the last four months and I feel that it should be nominated as a Good Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredBored (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! You want to nominate a C-class article for GA? Good luck with that. The page has way too many problems. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoredBored: It would need someone to review and tell us what needs to change and editors here would have to make the commitment. It would be nice if we could get it to GA. I understand ThatGirlTayler's sceptisim, but the editors here could do it. It would be nice to have editors with GA experience guiding things along. If you know of anyone, please send them over. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@ThatGirlTayler: "You want to nominate a C-class article for GA? Good luck with that. The page has way too many problems."

Like what, and in which section?

@SW3 5DL: Well what about User:Mandruss as a reviewer? S/he seems like they colud be a good fit for the job -- BoredBored (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Ask him. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GAREVIEW, the reviewer must not "have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". I think I fail that test, if only barely. But thanks for the compliment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad. So how do we get somebody? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't it nominated three times in the past and failed to be listed? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@BoredBored: I nominated it, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatGirlTayler (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal Pope also said: “…but men of sense approve.” I don’t think we’re there yet. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Yes, but when has that ever mattered on this talk page? Pope was a fun guy though, wasn't he? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC for best sentence to describe status of Trump's presidency

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• This RfC asks “Which one of the proposed lede sentences below, from A, B, or C, do you believe will best describe for the reader the status of Trump's presidency?
• Note 1.
• All choices have been taken from suggestions made by editors in previous, but very recent, discussions. I did not craft all of this. I only crafted one. I did my level best to find these. If you have other suggestions, please start your own RfC. Seven sentences is plenty for this one.
• Note 2.
• Whatever sentence you choose, it will begin with, Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician.. . .. There is currently no support to change the beginning portion of the sentence. If you want changes there, please start your own RfC.
• There are suggestions for two sentence and one sentence solutions. There are also suggestions to keep what is in the article right now. All are below:
• A. Two sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician. He is__
  1. __the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  2. __the 45th and current President of the United States.
• B. One sentence solution
  • Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, and politician__
  1. __and since January 2017, the 45th President of the United States.
  2. __and the incumbent and 45th President of the United States.
  3. __serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017.
  4. __and the 45th and current President of the United States.
• C. Keep what is there now
  1. __ and the 45th President of the United States.
• Please indicate in the survey section, A or B or C, and the number. Please also use the reply function in the discussion section if you wish to comment on another editor's choices, so as not to disrupt the survey section. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Abort - Quoting Objective3000, "No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." For any new arrivals, that consensus is linked at #Current consensus item 11. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort - I'm not sure there is consensus to modify both the hatnote and the lead, although there does appear to be consensus for modifying the lead if the hatnote is modified. In any event, the RFC question presented here is rather complex, and it seems to have skipped the ordinary discussion and survey phase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support B2. It seems to have positive comments in previous discussions. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• B4 (second one) - Minor preference just because of precedent that the Obama entry was phrased with 'current President'. Mostly just not a lot of preference between these choices, they're all pretty reasonable. Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Current wording is fine. And editor time is way better spent improving the rest of the article that getting into another long, protracted debate over the first sentence. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Too. Many. Damn. Choices. Will. Never. Result. In. A. Consensus. — JFG 04:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort. Beginning to have concerns about CIR... MelanieN or Anythingyouwant, would one of you be willing to take over? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Abort Jeeeeeezus. Please, please stop creating RfCs. They are designed for DISPUTE RESOLUTION, only for WHEN NORMAL DISCUSSION HAS BROKEN DOWN. This is the most RfC-happy talk page in Misplaced Pages history. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why this RfC:

Starting here with a 'survey about the lede, and here with what is 'universally acceptable text,' and here with a discussion section, the lede has been discussed recently, and in depth, by several editors, who invested a lot of their time. Just when it seemed things had been winnowed down, along came this which only suggests we include either 'incumbent,' 'current,' or 'serving as.'

Because it is not specific, and did not address proposed sentences, or even keeping things as they are, it won't solve anything. It just postpones the discussion, which will have to resume after that closes. Very likely, that will then winnow down the choices, like the other discussion/survey did, and then be followed by someone usurping the gathering consensus with another vague RfC. So I’ve sorted through the discussions, read what others were saying, and I included all those bits in this RfC.

• This RfC includes keeping things as they are, because editors have suggested that, too. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

• Comment: @Mandruss: and you'll note that the consensus 11 which is currently in the article, is also a choice. So if you want what is there to stay, feel free to ivote C1. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  I don't just want to retain status quo, far more important is to stop wasting editor resources debating changes to the first sentence (I think I've made that abundantly clear). Hence my Abort !vote. Also noting that you have again started an overlapping RfC, as this one that had to be SNOW aborted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not a good RfC because I misunderstood what was wanted. I've researched these threads and comments. As for editor's time, each one of us has to decide that for ourselves. But this endless bickering over this needs to end. Anythingyouwant did have a good idea and I don't know why he did the RfC he did, but it does not address the issue and is not at all overlapping here. I've explained my rationale, I've included gathering consensus, and that's all anyone can ask for. And as far as the 'abort' ivote, there is no policy for disrupting an RfC. All you need to do is abstain from voting. It doesn't force you to do anything. But no one has the right to disrupt a well thought out, well presented question for the community to decide. And no one knows that better than you. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC was closed by an admin just yesterday, for no other reason than six experienced editors "disrupted" it by !voting to abort it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, this RfC was not closed. This is brand new. The other one was nothing like this one and was a terrible RfC and the admin saw that. This is not that. This is nothing like that. This one takes into account previous discussion, it incorporates editor's suggestions and edit preferences, including keeping things as they are. It gives specific choices that were suggested by the editors here. If you believe it should be closed, then please go find an admin. But I would ask the admin to read it thoroughly and go through the previous discussions first. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not going to go find an admin. I am, however, going to !vote to abort this RfC. And I have done so. If there is insufficient support for abort, the RfC will play out normally. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no sufficient rationale to shut this down and disruption by piling on with 'abort' in an effort to wave off editors, will not do it. That's what admins are for. This question is based on community discussion, suggestions, and what editors have said they want. This RfC seeks to satisfy that. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, admins do not decide whether or not a hard-fought consensus needs to be discussed further. The article's editors do. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They decide when something is disruption. And that's all I'll say on the matter. I've explained the rationale, I've presented a well-written question, offered choices that come from editors in the discussions, and also address the question of keeping what is in the article right now. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Two sentences for the lead paragraph?

Judging from previous conversations at this talk page, it seems likely that the hatnote will be shortened and will no longer say Trump is the incumbent, and it also seems likely that the lead paragraph will accordingly be edited to say that Trump is president nowadays. Given that we'll probably be putting the latter info into the lead paragraph, this seems like a good opportunity to split the lead paragraph into two sentences. Per Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles, "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." That's not a policy or guideline, but it's still good advice. Books about writing style often say that a one-sentence paragraph can be used sparingly for emphasis, or as a transition between longer paragraphs, but here we need neither (because anything in the lead paragraph automatically is emphasized, and because there's no transition between paragraphs). If we add the bit about being in office now, the lead sentence becomes kind of bulky, so it's a perfect candidate to be split in two. So let's have a survey. Do you support a two-sentence lead paragraph?

• Support as proposer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Isn't this very thing being considered in about eleventy-billion existing discussions somewhat north of this one? -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - "No event has occurred to justify the investment in relitigating a hard-fought consensus." See #Current consensus item 11. I will point out, again, that "should be used sparingly" is not the same as "should not be used". My view is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with offsetting the most important sentence in the article with a paragraph break. I say this not to engage myself in this time sink, but to illustrate certain editors' hearing difficulty and propensity for weak arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I sympathize with the need to break down convoluted sentences, the lead of this article is sharp enough and we have elegant ways to add Trump's entry into office without bludgeoning the prose. For a two-line paragraph (one-line if your screen is wide enough), I don't think the guidance you quote applies. See for example my preferred wording: Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality and politician, serving as the 45th President of the United States since January 2017. Splitting this would sound forced. Or Trumpian. But I'm sure there are other ways. Good ones. Words. Short words are best. Believe me! — JFG 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• 'Comment It seems like a good idea to break down big complicated problems into smaller, less complicated problems and work on resolving them one at a time. I don't mind the two-sentence solutions, but JFG's way is better IMO because it avoids apparent redundancy ("current" is said to be redundant with "is the 45th POTUS") and includes the important context of start time. It would also be possible to have a relative clause instead of a new sentence, e.g. "who has served as" or "who has been" Siuenti (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Top-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment