This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 120

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

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

donald trump now was, the presindent if united states, he no longer is the current one 109.133.126.50 ( talk) 11:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Donald Trump is still the President of the United States, as his term expires in January. The United States also has a President-Elect, but that doesn't mean Trump immediately stops being president. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 11:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC to be exact. HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 14:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

change: | successor = < !-- Joe Biden: Please see talk page before adding Joe Biden here--> to: | successor = < !-- Joe Biden:--> (take out space before between < and !

TheRealWikiUser ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:. There is no space present in the tag in the article's current revision. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 18:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ StraussInTheHouse: The addition of the QAnon/q-anon mention in the lead was one of the changes introduced without consensus. After I reverted to the pre-announcement revision, it's no longer there: [1]. If consensus is achieved to add that paragraph, the stylization of the term can be agreed upon as well before it's reintroduced. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GorillaWarfare Thanks for all your help, but boy, I sure disagree with that call. I think we HAVE to have in the article at least the information that the networks have called it. I have been a careful stroll through the history and was coming here to suggest restoration of the 17:52 version [2]. I don't think there is anything like consensus to restore the article to status pre the election call. But it is what it is, so I will start proposing additions to the article, and if there is consensus I will request the help of an uninvolved administrator to add it. I will try not to make it be you all the time! -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about:

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

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

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

RS media overwhelmingly take the view that one of Trump's most significant legacies will be his influence on far-right politics. I read a piece published on Friday by the Brookings Institution (a notable cut above your average newspaper editorial or think-tank) in which one of its senior fellows on governance policy wrote: "More broadly, Trump’s core appeal is the appeal of fascism: the pleasure of inflicting cruelty and humiliation on those one fears and disdains, the gratification of receiving the authoritarian’s flattery, and the exhilaration of a crowd freed from the normal strictures of law, reason and decency." [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last paragraph of the Political Career section says, "In the weeks following Trump's inauguration, massive anti-Trump demonstrations took place, such as the Women Marches, which gathered 2.6 million people worldwide, including 500,000 in Washington alone." Shouldn't "Women Marches" be "Women's Marches"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare  (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In 5.3 Immigration, in the Family Separation at Border section, it says, "Trump falsely asserting that his administration was merely following the law, blaming Democrats, when in fact this was his administration's policy." Shouldn't this be "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law and blamed Democrats when, in fact, this was his administration's policy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare  (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that someone has set the URL http://loser.com to redirect to this article. -- The Anome ( talk) 22:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed an uptick in bias complaints in the past few days, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Now that we're past the election, Trump supporters are suddenly more concerned about what this article says about him? Maybe that's part of the explanation. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I note also that the pageview count for today has risen masssively. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to Trump, IT'S NOT OVER...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but anybody involved in deciding the outcome is not going to look to Wikipedia for information about Donald Trump. I would hope Trump supporters understand that, but maybe I give them too much credit. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you realise how much courts use Wikipedia. Anyway, I think it's understandable for anyone concerned about Trump to take an interest in this article, as it appears so prominently in an Internet search. And this is a point in time when people in farflung parts of the world are talking about Trump...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that it's super important, but I suspect Wikipedia doesn't hold referral information? So there's no way to set up a "This redirection of the URL is not affiliated with Wikipedia" message to appear for people who are redirected from that URL? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. That may be a good question for WP:VPT. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it going to be a moot point in a couple of days? People are clicking on loser.com because of social media memes. The meme will die naturally in a couple of days. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Couple of days? I doubt it. It may die on inauguration day. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? -- Tytrox ( talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering that, what can we even do? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

One practical thing we can do is for more people to be attentive to problems with this article, based on its enormous recent page-view rate. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Loser.com, apparently this has been a thing for a long time, redirecting it to people the owner is critical of. ValarianB ( talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating, and useful to know. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm just simpleton and don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but simply juxtaposing Donald Trump and Barack Obama's wikipedia articles clearly show this. You can see how Barack Obama's page focuses on all the positive aspects of Obama and Donald Trump's lead focuses on all the negative aspects of Trump. I did not vote for Trump, so this has nothing to do with my own personal bias. Not a single "negative" thing Obama did is covered in the lead and almost everything about Trump is negative. Can this not clearly be seen? I think both sides should have representation in what each President did that was considered both positive and negative. Flag this any way you want, but it's clear as day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:2200:907:f45e:3faf:8f02:a1f9 ( talk) 18:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles follow the sources. As it happens, most seems to be more critical of collusions with foreign governments and oppressive immigration policies than they are critical about, say, tan suits. ValarianB ( talk) 18:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The response to your comments, representing a strong consensus among this article's editors, can be found at Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ― Mandruss  ☎ 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC

@ Mandruss: Out of interest, is that paged linked to from somewhere new users can find it? I can't spot it at the top of this page. Jr8825 • Talk 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No. I guess because "new users" (i.e. readers) would be unlikely to "find it", so it would just add to the informational clutter already being ignored because there is so dang much of it. It was conceived (by me) as an easy way for editors to respond to such bias complaints in a concise, clear, and uniform manner with as much respect as possible.

A shortcut was discussed but never implemented, so for now responding editors have to just remember the page title. My Firefox browser pops up that URL in its suggestions when I append a slash to the end of the URL of this page in the address field, so it's easy for me. Don't know about others. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Mandruss: Firefox always suggests what it thinks you're interested in. So, I tried appending a slash and didn't get that suggestion. Then I followed your link Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, and then tried the slash again. That time I got the suggestion. ("Hey, she's interested in that page, I'll suggest it!") That's how Firefox works. In other words, new users won't get the suggestion. Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand how Firefox works. I was suggesting that responding editors who have Firefox or similar browsers may do what you did, and they will thereafter have an easy substitute for a shortcut. The existence of the page is communicated by word-of-mouth, just as has happened in this thread. I didn't intend for complaining readers to find the page in that manner, if that's what you meant. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is very plainly bias against the subject of the article. This is clearly evident not only from reading the article, but reading the talk page as well. This bias is assisted by the amount of the subject's negative aspects being far greater than most other public figures, and that most potential editors who are biased towards the subject are not nearly as adept in editing Wikipedia as those biased against. However, even those editors clearly biased against the subject are willing to create an article that to them appears free from bias. An article like this shouldn't be something that catalogues "both sides", but should certainly assess the subject much more dispassionately and without the clear negative opinion that underscores the article's content. It would be incredibly helpful if readers could point out what particular parts of the article they feel is biased. Likewise, editors should stop dismissing assessments of bias on the basis that the subject is a bad person with bad things to be said about. We have articles on many such infamous and notorious people that are not written with any bias. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 19:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is the result of experienced editors' best efforts to apply vague, nuanced, incredibly complex, confusing, often self-contradictory Wikipedia policies, and that includes frequent participation by several trusted off-duty Wikipedia admins. We have elaborate mechanisms for showing the door to editors who persistently push POVs beyond the community's tolerance limit. If that is not sufficient to keep the article fairly consistent with Wikipedia policies including NPOV, then the entire Wikipedia system is irreparably broken, and I don't know what you hope to accomplish with such a comment. If there are in fact anti-Trump editors who have skillfully mastered the fine art of using policy to get their biases into articles without getting topic-banned, they are not going to change their spots because you or any number of people call them out. If en-wiki is controlled by unprincipled liberals, including ArbCom, the remedy is to bring in more conservatives and encourage them to learn policy, participate civilly like most of the rest of us, and somehow infiltrate ArbCom. Not to issue rants on article talk pages. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is a result of what you describe, and also the biases of many editors and we should be able to admit that. I largely do not think this is intentional on the part of those editors, but let's acknowledge that there are "anti-Trump editors" who also happen to be adept at process and policy. I am not calling out any individuals, and I am only referring to this article, not elsewhere on Wikipedia. We aren't doing nothing to combat bias but we can certainly do better, as the state of the article shows. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually we're not too far apart on that, and this comment will seem inconsistent with my previous one. Until we repeal human nature, the human problem will always exist and it's up to the system to protect articles from the human nature. If you're right, the system currently fails to do that, and the remedy is to somehow fix the system. I wouldn't begin to know how to do that, or whether it's even possible (probably not), but I know it won't happen by discussions on article talk pages. And I think you would be hard pressed to find many editors who see things the way I do, anyway. I'm a bit of a radical. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the anti-Trump editors (a grouping in which I expect I'd be included) take the view that the current weight of the negative aspects is largely DUE and justified by the RS? I suspect this disagreement ultimately comes down to a different reading of the sources, and ultimately the differing world-views which are colouring these interpretations, rather than bad faith attempts to disparage the subject. All I can do is invite and urge you both to consistently point out any and all specific examples of where you consider bias to be overriding the facts, and lay out your case so we can discuss and adjust them, what more can we do? Jr8825 • Talk 21:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to recognize bias in the article if it exists, precisely because policy is so vague, nuanced, incredibly complex, confusing, and often self-contradictory. I have little choice but to operate on faith or retire, and I'm not ready for retirement yet. What I do know is that some editors take an anti-Trump position on almost every issue, and others take a pro-Trump position on almost every issue, and it seems to me that clearly suggests that both are failing to even try to check their biases at the door. Again, human nature.

And, speaking from a US-liberal perspective, one might even silently (or unconsciously) reason that saving the country, the world, and democracy itself from another four years of Trump was a little more important than the integrity of a silly encyclopedia. I struggle with that constantly. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's more about how the content is written, rather than what is included. A typical example would be where it says Trump acted slowly on the coronavirus pandemic, instead of saying what he did or didn't do. It is safe to assume that there are editors here who are motivated to disparage the article subject with their contributions to the article, but I would not consider this to be bad faith as they generally do believe their additions are reliably sourced and within Wikipedia guidelines. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The central tendency of mainstream thinking on the pandemic is less and less that he was slow, but rather that he took none of the substantive actions that would have saved tens of thousands of lives, tens of thousands of jobs, and tens of thousands of small businesses. Increasingly it's reported that his reaction was not slow but that it was denial. Would that also upset you, or do you not find adequate sourcing for "slow" as of the time we agreed on it many months ago? SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: It would be far more appropriate for the article to say that medical experts consider Trump to have taken too little action too slowly. We don't need to explicitly say that Trump caused people to die, and it would be biased to do so. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't throw straw person issues on the talk page. The article doesn't say Trump caused deaths, although many qualified RS, notable experts, and academic studies have said that. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: I've not said the article says Trump directly caused any deaths from the coronavirus pandemic. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You threw it up, original and irrelevant. Nobody else suggested that, either for the article or on this talk page. In the same post, you failed to respond to the points I and others are making. That is what's meant by a straw person argument. Come to think of it, however, I may gather some references that estimate the number of American deaths that would have been prevented had Trump taken any effective action against the virus. That would be more specific and should address your concerns as well. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: You said he took none of the substantive actions that would have saved tens of thousands of lives, which is what I was referring to. I haven't made an argument against it, unless you consider that calling it biased is an argument, except to say that I don't think we should do that. So no, I didn't "throw it up, original and irrelevant". I have been quite thorough in responding to the points raised by editors here, but please do restate any points you think I have not addressed, either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Many editors interpret the vague, nuanced, incredibly complex, confusing, and often self-contradictory (VNICCOS) policy differently than you do. Few uninvolved closers have both (1) the confidence in their policy knowledge and (2) the backbone to close against the numbers, inviting a stressful and time-consuming closure challenge, provided the majority at least sound like they know something about policy. If the policy were substantially less VNICCOS, there would be far less room for disagreement. That is not going to happen while Wikipedia content policy continues to be crowdsourced, and that crowdsourcing is fundamental, inviolable religion to most editors. In my strong opinion, and I've spent a substantial part of the past six years thinking about this, the word is "intractable". ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It won't be easy but we should be able to start strengthening NPOV guidelines. Wikipedia isn't represented by the battleground nature of this article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's curious to me that some editors only see anti-Trump bias but not pro-Trump bias in talk page comments. It's not like one point of view is "bias" and others are not. While some editors truly do not have an opinion about political subjects, many editors do and we edit in spite of them, following reliable sources. But it's not like only one political perspective is bias and others are not. We seek neutral point of view in the articles while we all retain our own beliefs about all kinds of subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen any sentiments in support of Donald Trump on this talk page from established editors. We have all seen comments that denigrate Trump on this talk page, which in my view should not be allowed but is not the most serious concern. The talk page certain contains more bias than the article itself. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• We follow what the sources say, which means that if the mainstream coverage among reliable sources covering a subject emphasize that they did a poor job as President, held unpopular positions, and took actions or pursued policies that were widely-criticized, the article will cover that neutrally and accurately; trying to censor it in order to make all presidential articles equally upbeat regardless of how well or poorly they performed and regardless of the coverage in sources is WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you compare Trump to (for example) James Buchanan, a president whose term in office is similarly viewed poorly, they are quite similar - James Buchanan's article unequivocally says in the first paragraph that he is widely considered among the worst presidents we ever had, noting the numerous reasons for this, and accurately reports both his support for slavery and the way his actions contributed to the Civil War without regard for his feelings or the feelings of whatever admirers he might have. Andrew Johnson's article is similar; it notes his impeachment in the first paragraph and his assessment as one of the worst presidents we have ever had near the end. We don't know precisely where Trump will fall relative to those two in long-term coverage, but based on what we have now (combined with the fact that presidents who fail to win a second term are almost always viewed as failures by historians), it seems likely to be close to those, so unless something changes they would make a good model going forwards. The tone of those articles is dispassionate (as the tone of this article is), but the facts are the facts and we cannot shy away from them. There is nothing biased about reporting the fact that Trump, by most measures outside of those made by his fervent base, is considered to have done extremely poorly in his time as president. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The bias in this article goes beyond our use of reliable sources, and we should not respond to every accusation of bias by saying that the article only reflects reliable sources. Our article on Donald Trump would be much better if it was written in the same tone as the articles on Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 07:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a very long-standing issue on wikipedia, especially on this page specifically, that has been repeatedly brought up and immediately shot down under the guise of WP:RS. You aren't going to garner enough support to change anything significantly, just the nature of the beast unfortunately Anon0098 ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no "bias against the subject of the article" whatsoever, on the contrary. This article goes out of its way to treat the subject in a less critical manner than how he is portrayed by every reliable source on the planet, and to give him every possible benefit of the doubt, and to water down criticism. The critical material is just the bare minimum required for us to not seem like Fox News or Breitbart (the "source" most frequently cited by Trump on Twitter after his election defeat).

In sum, mainstream, centrist editors aren't very happy with this article because of its countless compromises resulting in a very mild treatment of Trump. A claim that the article is biased against Trump would seem to be based on the assumption that Wikipedia should treat the views of fringe, extremist publications like Breitbart as equally valid (WP:FALSEBALANCE) as the views of NYT, CNN etc., and that will never happen. -- Tataral ( talk) 20:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Tataral: If you think claims of the article being biased are based on using mainstream sources instead of fringe sources as references, then you simply are not aware of what those claims are being made on. Wikipedia should not be praising or criticising anybody, but we can include praise or criticism from others in context where appropriate. This article does not need to include criticising material to report on the events of the Trump administration. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

On some days I agree with your point, Tataral (my mind seems full of conflicting thoughts about this, disturbingly, and I've been unable to resolve them). For example, the article has persistently avoided the wiki voice use of any form of the word "lie", despite it having become fairly widespread in non-opinion RS. #Current consensuses 6, 14, 22, 26, 33, and 39 are Trump-favorable, and many of the rest are Trump-neutral. I've been toying with the idea of adding a short list of such things to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a repeat or a duplicate. If it's either, let me know and I'll withdraw it.

Two significant issues, and I'm not feeling inclined to BOLD either of them. To my shame, I'm better at identifying problems like these than fixing them.

Re the election, the body only has a short paragraph at the end of the campaign section. That seems structurally wrong, as the campaign ended on Election Day. Shouldn't there be an election section, even if it's a short one?

Re the election, the lead contains more details than the body, violating MOS:LEAD. The lead "wins" in word count, 61 to 49. One possible remedy would be to add words to the body, after which that election section wouldn't be quite so short. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead can just say he lost. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've cut down a little bit of the repetition in the lead, and in my view, the next step should be to expand the text in the article body. The final sentence of the lead (on the presidential transition) is also a potential candidate for cutting. I personally lean towards including it, but acknowledge this is probably based on a personal assessment of its current notability and probable future significance – it's hard to determine the extent of its notability as it's so recent, and I expect you could make a solid case for its omission. Jr8825 • Talk 16:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Rather than create a new section for the election, I think it would be better change the title of the "2020 presidential campaign" to "2020 presidential election". The campaign is a lead-up to the election. (I think there is currently too much detail about the campaign and the information has been to some extent superseded.)-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Parts of this bio are partisan and frankly not true. Especially the racist claims. Perhaps when it comes to accusations, they can be notated with "his opponents say"

2601:548:C101:58B0:48:C67E:D6BA:14A8 ( talk) 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Which racist claims? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump goes into this in-depth, many of the conclusions of racism are not from his opponents but from reliable sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I’d argue that unless there are Donald Trump quotes associated with the claims of racism, then they should be removed. The term “racist” has become a politically charged word that has lost its effect because of its wide spread use by politicians and media pundits. Claims of racism by Donald Trump not specifically sourced by a Donald Trump quote would violate WP:NPOV and would be seen as a left leaning bias. BlackBird1008 ( talk) 20:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ BlackBird1008: You seem to have major misconception issues.

1. "Claims of racism by Donald Trump not specifically sourced by a Donald Trump quote would violate WP:NPOV" - This is untrue. Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not need to have a quote from his mouth to analyze the effects of his acts, such as openly pandering to white supremacist groups and retweeting well-documented racists.
2. "and would be seen as a left leaning bias." - Extreme right-wing individuals seem to think that anything to the left of advocating hunting the homeless for sport (sarcasm/hyperbole) is "left leaning bias", so that really is a meaningless claim.

I would suggest that you spend quite a bit of time reading up on Wikipedia policies and on what "bias" actually means. IHateAccounts ( talk) 22:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Major misconception issues: Is that like being mistaken? ― Mandruss  ☎ 07:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Its, I have a different point of view so I must be mistaken. I have a hard time including racism in a BLP unless its someone like David Duke who was a self declared racist. This isn't because racism isn't real or because Im condoning Trump as being "the least racist person in the room", it's because the term racist has become politically charged and it does make this article feel biased. Even the Wikipedia Co-founder acknowledges the bias https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBird1008 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with IHateAccounts, quoting the specific words spoken by a person are not the only way to show their racism, as suggested by the OP. Also, the claim that the statements made in the article are "frankly not true" has as much evidence/proof/validity, as there is for widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Despayre   ^{tête-à-tête} 16:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this is speculation. Some of the sources are opinion pieces. The only source that could pass muster is the one about Trump saying “knock the crap out of them” when referencing tomato throwers at his rallies in 2016. I don’t think that someone invoking Trump when caught committing acts of violence is Trump inciting violence. As for hate crimes going up, that’s all speculative, they also went up during Obama’s tenure. I’d like to see this section deleted because it does not add value to the article and it can come across as violating WP:NPOV BlackBird1008 ( talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes its why it "allegations " and no "Trump inciting violence”. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is it does not add value and does not keep a neutral point of view, all this aims to do is to put a negative light on Trump for actions by others. If it had more reliable non opinion pieces to back it up then it would be a different story. This article is already viewed as biased by many and this section does not help the situation. BlackBird1008 ( talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Allegations and speculation add nothing to the article. I could see maybe one sentence about the topic, not an entire section Anon0098 ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The section has 8 sources, none of which appear immediately unreliable. The Buzzfeed News sources probably need a second look, and I'm not sure if Vanity Fair is reliable for politics, but I see no reason to remove the section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, WP:RSP notes that BuzzFeed News is reliable. It says that Vanity Fair is reliable for pop culture and doesn't mention politics. I would say that the work Vanity Fair has been doing on the Trump administration is stellar and have no concerns with their recent work. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

-I’d ask this question, if we are going to include this material in the Donald Trump article, then shouldn’t we add this type of section into every public figure who has applauded attacks on Trump supporters? BlackBird1008 ( talk) 20:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ BlackBird1008: - you can certainly try. starship .paint ( talk) 08:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

every public figure does not have the visibility and influence of the president of the United States. Not even close. ― Mandruss  ☎ 09:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

-I'd like to ask, Is there a reason that Trump's three nominations for the Noble Peace Prize and the Middle East peace agreements are not in the lead/article? The article itself seems to be stuck on one theme. Is there nothing of value in this man's accomplishments to add to this BLP? Mind, I do not have a dog in this fight, I would not attempt to edit this article, but perhaps get some fresh eyes on the article? Bodding ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Nobel" Peace Prize nominations aren't mentioned because they're trivial. Anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel. Winning one is another matter. I think there was discussion about the Middle East peace agreements but can't remember. It may have been recently archived. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not quite anyone that can nominate... but it's tons of people anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bodding - read this [4] starship .paint ( talk) 08:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. . .got it! Thanks all. Bodding ( talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Iran section of Foreign Policy, the 4th sentence says, "After withdrawing from the agreement, Trump administration moved forward with a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran via economic sanctions, but without support of other parties to the deal." This sentence is missing a "the" before "Trump administration." Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 02:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Grammar change: For the 2020 presidential election section, sentence should be "The campaign's cash crunch forced a scale-back in advertising spending" instead of "The campaign's cash crunch forcing a scale-back in advertising spending." Cookies And Creme (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out that typo. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Grammar's my job! /s Mrytzkalmyr ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

We also need to be careful to avoid original reporting. -- Tytrox ( talk) 02:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Add election call to the lead

Add election call to the 2020 presidential campaign section

Add Trump reaction to the 2020 presidential campaign section

Sources
^ "Election 2020 Live Updates: Joseph R. Biden Jr. Has Won the Presidency". The New York Times. November 7, 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2020. ^ King, Ledyard (November 7, 2020). "Trump revives baseless claims of election fraud after Biden wins presidential race". USA Today. Retrieved 7 November 2020.

Add a sentence to the lead about succession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. We can discuss the precise wording, but the name of the expected successor and the date of the transition are highly relevant facts in any politician's article. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at this stage.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support All reliable sources have recognized Biden as President-Elect and have judged Trump's challenges as groundless and frivolous. So far, they have been swiftly dismissed by the courts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - For now. There is no rush. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He could still die or resign before the end of 2020. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support All reliable sources and Biden's own Wikipedia articles names him as president-elect. JJARichardson ( talk) 22:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81#Should_Trump_be_listed_in_the_Infobox_as_Obama's_successor?. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood the question. This is for the lead, not the infobox? Then support (per precedent). Arguments like Trump is not Obama are meritless; the constant argument that the presidency is nothing in the context of Trump's life is baloney. Once you're a president, you're remembered in history for being a president. Not for running The Apprentice. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I like this wording, it's matter-of-fact without rubbing salt on a contentious issue by unnecessarily saying that Trump "lost". Presumably it would replace the text "In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, major news organizations have projected that Trump lost his bid for re-election." The wording suggested by El komodos drago works just as well in my view. Jr8825 • Talk 07:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jr8825. Volunteer Marek 04:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unless a reliable source that contradicts this claim can be found. As per my knowledge, such a source does not exist (and I am obviously discounting Breibart and similar). But I'd invite the opposing camp to provide such a source, in which case I would reconsider. Eccekevin ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Gotta go with Mandruss's reasoning, as stated above, on this. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 12:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If we did it 4 years ago, in the Obama article? then we should do the same here. Otherwise, don't. FWIW - Biden was elected president of the United States, despite the Trump camp's 'desperate' claims. GoodDay ( talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, please don't tell me about the Electoral College not having voted yet & Congress not having certified yet, as I know all about that. Even though that would be a much better argument for the exclusionist, then their courts argument. SCOTUS doesn't decide US prez elections & as for 2000? It was the Gore camp that threw in the towel, because there wasn't enough time left to do over the Florida recount correctly. Either way, the result would've been the same - Bush winning. GoodDay ( talk) 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jr8825. Mgasparin ( talk) 09:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy-edit/language updates

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

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

A defeated president conceding defeat is more-or-less a media creation. AFAIK, the early presidents like Adams, J.Q. Adams, Van Buren (for examples) haven't been recorded as conceding. Indeed, if Trump were to not attend Biden inauguration? that also wouldn't be a first, as both Adams's & A. Johnson didn't attend their successors inaugurals. GoodDay ( talk) 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

At this point in time it is becomming more and more clear than Donald Trump has lost this election. Joe Biden has Huge leads in all the major key states. Trump's efforts to reverse those results have failed countless times. About 90% of them have been dismissed due to lack of evdience and the fact they only affect a really small number of votes. There is no way Trump wins this election. World Leaders, Politicians, and many others have declared Joe Biden the President-elect. Hell, this wikipedia's President-elect page has Biden as the president-elect. I think it is about time to add the successor to this page. I mean the odds of Trump overriding Biden's huge leads are slim to none and Republican leaders are beginning to accept it. Phoenix X Maximus ( talk) 19:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this time, after multiple further projections and multiple resolutions to lawsuits, A2/B2 are better, and I prefer B2 without the "defeated" word, per my struck rationale above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A2 or B2. All reliable sources unanimously agree on the result of the election. On the Charles Darwin page we don't say 'all sources concur that he was born in 1809'; we say 'he was born in 1809'. If there is unanimous agreement among all reliable sources, Wikipedia presents the facts as they are. When the Electors convene, this can be rephrased. Eccekevin ( talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the need to remain neutral with regard to withholding the declaration that Trump lost the election until it has been verified by the official electoral college votes in December. Also, I appreciate that it is not being denied by those in charge that Biden is in fact the president-elect. However, in this case, choosing this neutrality helps spread misinformation because making this issue a debate undermines democracy. This is because it gaslights people into thinking that the election was stolen, and that Biden did not win. The truth is that Biden won the election, and this is not my opinion. It is a fact, verified by multiple media outlets, as well as world leaders who have recognized Biden as the next president, including Boris Johnson, a right-wing leader resembling Trump himself. Additionally, I see a double standard compared to 2016, when Wikipedia did not wait until the electors officially cast their votes in December to declare that Hillary Clinton lost and that Trump would succeed Obama as the next president.

Therefore, those in charge here need to understand that waiting until the electors have cast their votes to declare Biden the winner, saying that the media projects Biden will win, as opposed to saying that he won, and other forms of neutrality with regard to this issue are just as complicit in spreading misinformation and undermining democracy as overtly stating that Biden is not the next president.

Again, I understand why neutrality is important. It stops the spread of misinformation and helps weed out bias. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them, for in this case, being neutral helps spread misinformation and allows bias that favors Trump’s claims that the election was stolen to persist. I therefore politely implore those in charge here to reconsider their neutral stance in this instance. I’m looking at you, Mandruss. Ascarboro97 ( talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I almost missed your reference to me, at the end of that long comment without a ping. I'll stand by my !vote, but worry not. Clearly, the prevailing sentiment is to use Wikipedia as a tool to help stop Trump's obstructive belligerence and pave the way for a smooth transition for the sake of the country. I understand people's desire to do that, but in my opinion it is not an appropriate use of an encyclopedia that should be dispassionate and apolitical. We should report about politics, not create content to help achieve desirable outcomes. ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• A2 or B2. We must match the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources; the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect reality as the sources report it. Neutrality ^talk 14:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bullet #48 does not belong under "current consensus," and the comment commanding users not to edit the Covid paragraph is inappropriate. The bullet suggests only that there is consensus for a paragraph on Trump's handling of the pandemic, not specific wording, and it specifically notes that prior discussions did not reach consensus on wording.

Instead, the term "status quo" is used, which does not reflect any policy disallowing further changes. This is a rather ham-handed effort to imply there is consensus where there is none and order users not to make changes to material without any grounding in policy or prior discussion. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 06:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Background: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 125#Consensus 48 question. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy. This one. So my primitive understanding is that CC#48 is a consensus for keeping the COVID response in the lead, and, while there's no consensus on the precise text, depending on who you ask, it can be interpreted as meaning there's a consensus on keeping that status-quo text until a consensus is found on an alternative. And of course our policy on this is clear as mud. At the most recent RfC, the closer's exact comment was "focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording through a combination of editing and talkpage discussion, making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors".

As it happens, I think "reacted slowly" is inherently judgemental language, so shouldn't be stated in wikivoice per WP:YESPOV. I tried to make this change yesterday but was reverted. The problem is that if the statement is an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" among RS, then NPOV does leave wriggle room for stating analytical assertions in wikivoice... so it's not entirely clear-cut. I think the wording would be better changed, but a case can be made that it's technically supportable by our policies.

• My suggestion would be: "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump initially downplayed the threat to public health, ignored or contradicted recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing." I think the rest of the sentence consists of supported facts and can be stated in wikivoice once the "reacted slowly" bit is changed. I have a rough RfC draft waiting in the wings, which I was considering starting a preliminary conversation on, but as it happens Wikieditor19920 beat me to it. Jr8825 • Talk 07:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Jr8825: Actually, WP:NOCON is pretty crystal clear. Where wording cannot be agreed upon, even if it is simply a modification, typically the entire segment is left out. There is no reference to "status quo" in WP:NOCON.

@ Mandruss: Provided a link to a discussion (that I participated in) where the was continued disagreement and no resolution. And yet, somehow this point has wormed its way into the list of consensus bullets, despite clearly lacking consensus, under this mystical and inaccurate notion of "status quo."

I agree that the criticisms of Trump's handling of Covid were widespread, but I would venture to say they are not so undisputed and uncontroversial, even if it occurred along partisan fault lines. Given the lack of consensus, we should be resolving doubts in favor of the cautious route, which means providing attribution. Nothing about this waters down or counteracts the meaning if the text. I don't know how this ended up in the list of content with consensus, but it is ridiculous that an editor thought it appropriate to a) include it despite consensus so clearly not being apparent and b) insert a comment into the article ordering editors not to make changes when the text was perfectly subject to challenge. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 08:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NOCON really isn't that clear, it allows for two different scenarios: one where the current version is retained and one where the contentious content is removed, and does not firmly say when each should be occur ("commonly" and "often" are the words it uses). Anyway, I think the best thing to do is focus on finding better wording that editors can agree on, rather than worry about what the current wording's status is. Jr8825 • Talk 08:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There IS consensus to include a statement. We devised a statement that after 5-months of discussion had considerable support, though it was deemed to not have a consensus. The trouble is that attempting to devise a consensus statement seems to just lead to endless discussion and no consensus - endless instability. I found the statement we included to be compelling and well-supported by reliable citations. There was zero (0) support for the weasel words, such as are presently in the lead: "was widely criticized" (by who?). Its just a fact he was slow, deliberately slow, as the article text pretty clearly describes. Factually correct and NPOV, but politically sensitive and perceived as POV. Meanwhile, for all the complaints about the statement given in CC#48 no one has yet brought an alternate suggestion to these Talk pages to attempt to devise an acceptable solution; we will not revert war ourselves to such a solution. Color me cynical. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please have some respect for the prior extensive discussions. Please respect the existing content of the article that the lead is meant to represent. These are obvious points... Bdushaw ( talk) 11:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Bdushaw: I'm not sure whether you're referring to Wikieditor, me, or both of us, but I've read the RfCs and am not trying to challenge CC#48. My personal concern is purely limited to the wikivoice wording of "Trump reacted slowly". I've seen a significant number of editors raise concerns about it, more than can simply be dismissed as bad faith or sensitivity due to support for Trump ^[1] – I definitely have no sympathy for him, and yet I can see policy-based objections to this wording. My concern boils down to the tone, not the accuracy. WP:IMPARTIAL and the non-judgemental principle of WP:YESPOV can be failed, even if the content is factual. I can break down in a more detailed way why I think it's a problem, but I'd like to suggest an alternative (well actually I just did :) but I didn't highlight it clearly so it looks like you missed it) – I've underlined it so it's more visible. What are your thoughts on this? I think it retains much of the strength of the current wording.

I agree with you that the new weasel wording isn't an improvement. I think it may be better to revert the text back to the 'status quo' until we find support for an alternative (such as mine, perhaps, but if not I'll happily drop the stick). Jr8825 • Talk 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I was speaking broadly, based on months of similar conflicts/arguments. Seems to me that those wishing to revise the status quo (its just a status quo, not a consensus, not set in stone!) have a straightforward path - start a new section entitled something like "Proposed revised COVID-19 statement for the lead" and give the statement and arguments for it. Editors on this article raise all manner of bias/political concerns, repeatedly; I am skeptical of such concerns wrt the consensus. There is a sense of bad faith/political motivations, without pointing any fingers; perhaps less trouble now that the election is over. A possible solution may be to attempt wording that avoids the question entirely. But I suggest a clean start to the question with a new Talk entry. Trump has behaved more poorly than slowly, however - a good case to be made that he was counterproductive numerous times - ridiculing masking, attitude, politicizing pandemic response, disinfectant injections, large rallies, etc etc. and now 10 days have gone by since the election and with the pandemic roaring in an entirely predictable/predicted way, he has been AWOL on the issue. A revised statement should likely touch on these more recent terrible consequences. But start a clean, new Talk section, IMO; that has been the obvious process (????!!!!) (and be prepared for months of discussion...) Bdushaw ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Process is important here, and hence accuracy. The citation you gave was not an RfC. There was a Talk Discussion (the link you gave), and a formal RfC. The status quo statement was a result of these extensive discussions. I personally thought the SQ statement had a consensus, but the uninvolved closers did not see it that way. Bdushaw ( talk) 14:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, I overlooked that it wasn't an actual RfC as CC#48 lists it as "link 1", followed by "link 2" for the RfC, and I didn't pay enough attention to the actual title. To be honest I jumped the gun a bit here by throwing a suggestion that I'd been working on into this section, as it happened to be on the same issue. While it's a bit repetitious, I'll start a new section specifically on the wording "reacted slowly". Jr8825 • Talk 14:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Bdushaw: Anyone wishing to edit a portion of the article that lacks consensus can do so by making bold edits or suggesting changes on the talk page. There is no "status quo" other than a term of art. At no point was the section mentioned in 48 the subject of any specific consensus over wording, and WP:NOCON frankly counsels against leaving it out for that reason. "Uninvolved editors" were wrong to suggest otherwise, and I think you should actually provide a policy link to support your assertions here about "status quo" being a thing. Further, the provided discussions show continued disagreement and debate, not consensus or "status quo." Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of everything, but as a matter of reality, the avenue you suggest will lead to a wild west of anarchy, turmoil and instability, in lead edits...Troubles with edits in an article should be brought to the Talk pages for resolution. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Bdushaw: No, problems ensue when the process is misused and editors assert consensus where there is none. Disagreement is allowed. The term you are using, "status quo," is not reflected in policy, and the discussions linked do not support the notion that this language is settled or undisputed. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No one said it was settled. But it is a little odd, don't you think, that after a laborious, months long discussion process where some language is coaxed out to be finally tentatively included, Joe Schmoe editor can wander in and "fix" it, then Jane Schmoe editor can object and "fix" it some more, then Frank Schmoe, etc etc. No one has ever objected to bringing the statement to these talk pages to derive something better, as challenging as that may be. It is, I may add, a little something, to presume that the 20-30 editors involved with this process got it all wrong. Bdushaw ( talk) 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's odd at all that editors are allowed to make changes to text, because I was the one who saw the problems with the text weeks ago, and I still see them present in the text now. You are misrepresenting past discussions by claiming greater involvement than there was, asserting consensus where there is none, and are behaving as if WP:OWN doesn't apply and only you or editors you agree with are allowed to make textual changes. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, you are totally entitled to your opinion, to disagree with me, and boldly revert my changes. What I am advocating here goes both ways. But do not make up consensus where there is none. The notion of "status quo" is non-binding and has no implication other than as a term of art or a suggestion for a particular variant. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor, I don't think you heard what Bdushaw just said. You didn't discover anything, you exhumed a dead woman. This was thoroughly discussed and resolved the first several times it was "discovered". SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO:, that's a wonderful analogy, and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

say trump is no onger president and it is fake news 131.109.147.105 ( talk) 15:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Misuse of the edit request facility (next time please read the instructions). Also false, Trump is president until January 20. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Biden is the president-elect; this is established in his own article too and is how he is described by all reliable sources. We described Trump as president-elect and included him as Obama's successor in Obama's article the day after the 2016 election, ages before the electoral college convened and before the votes were even counted. [12], [13] Judging by reliable sources it's an extremist fringe POV/conspiracy theory that Biden "isn't president-elect". It's standard practice in Wikipedia to include elected successors in the infobox with the qualification "elect". There is no reason to invent a new rule applied only to Biden just because Trump lost. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Tataral, WP:OR applies here. We must only include what reliable news sources include. Both sides agree on who the president-elect is. ^[1] Gsquaredxc ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How about verifiability and truth? The term is codified in federal law as the apparent successful candidate for the office of President in an election. It directs the GSA to "ascertain" the apparent winner and provide transitional services to the President-elect. [14] See this term "apparent" when the Administrator of the GSA confirmed Barack Obama as president-elect the day after the election. [15] It has nothing to do with the Electoral College as suggested here. Also, as is clear from coverage of the current election, the GSA does not "declare" one the President-Elect, but merely ascertains it. [16] GreatCaesarsGhost 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

All sources including Fox News have named Biden president-elect. I agree, he should be in the successor category to POTUS. AjayTO ( talk) 06:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems this argument was had 4 years ago. If we want to be 100% accurate? then yes, only the electors themselves got elected on November 3. So far 279 Biden pledged electors & 217 Trump pledged electors, with 42 left to be decided. Do we wanna wait until December 14 for the Electoral College to do the actual voting for president & vice president? then Congress certifying it all on January 6? GoodDay ( talk) 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point in time it is going to hard to deny reality. Joe Biden is the president-elect. Yes Trump has decided to challenge the results in courts but a huge majority of them have been thrown out/dismissed due to lack of evidence. There are zero signs that Trump is going to win re-election. None. Everybody at this point in time has accepted it. Even Wikipedia has. The President-elect page for instance has Joe Biden as president-elect, There is a page dedicated to Biden's inauguration,etc... . World Leaders, Politicians, and many others have already come to accept Biden as the 46th president. I don't see why we should wait for the next year when the result is painfully obvious. Phoenix X Maximus ( talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should include the elect because Biden is going to be the next president. Whether we like it or not. Pentock ( talk) 03:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the sentence which was incorrect (sorry), I think we should mention election day. Otherwise the narrative is unclear and strange. Something like "On November 4, the day after election day, with the results still unclear, Trump declared victory. However, I don't know what the correct American terminology for election day is.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As an American, I would like to say that the correct American terminology for election day is Election Day (usually capitalized, if I'm not mistaken). ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This was my fault. I screwed up, sorry. starship .paint ( talk) 11:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already claimed responsibility. However, Trump claimed victory in the early morning, November 4. Saying that it was the day after Election Day would be misleading, because it was actually on election night. Leaving this out will make it confusing in the future, but I'm not sure how to word this elegantly.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: Possible wordsmithing improvement. Elegant? Probably not.

Current:

On Election Day, November 3, the results were unclear, but nevertheless, early on November 4, Trump declared victory

Suggested:

The election was held on November 3. The following morning, with the election results unclear due to slower ballot counting in several states, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

― Mandruss  ☎ 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump declared victory at 2 am. Saying that it was the "following morning" seems misleading to me. Basically he made the call on election night.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: That distinction is really important in a Trump biography? It seems to me the essential point is that results were unclear, not the difference between 2am and 9am. But ok.

The election was held on November 3. At 2:00 the following morning, with the election results unclear due to slower ballot counting in several states, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

― Mandruss  ☎ 00:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it's biographically important that it was 2 am. I think it's important that it was on election night, a fact that several sources have emphasised. To me, the "following morning" suggests there was a passage of time between election night and Trump's claim, during which presumably people went to bed. The fact is, when the count halted for the night, Trump called a press coverage and made those comments. There was no gap in time. Trump's reaction was immediate. Part of the problem is that "night" and "morning" are ambiguous. Maybe this doesn't matter, but I think it has potential to cause confusion in the future. I'm also not sure about the "slower ballot counting". Isn't it also true that the count in several states is very close?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Jack Upland: "At 2:00 the following morning" couldn't be much more unambiguous or more precise (I suppose we could say "At 2:02:34 the following morning"). The morning following November 3 is November 4, that's how clocks work, and people learn at about age 6 that 2:00 in the morning is two hours after midnight (like, in the the middle of the night, when most folks were sleeping). What's confusing?

If some states were still uncalled after the others had been called, that seems "slower" by definition. Or close enough for our purposes here.

As for your last sentence, I don't know how that applies to this particular sentence. ― Mandruss  ☎ 01:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, I think. Some of the states were uncalled because they were very close, not because not enough ballots had been counted. So I can dispense with that part (returning us closer to the status quo).

The election was held on November 3. At 2:00 the following morning, with the election results unclear, Trump declared victory, saying "Frankly, we did win."

― Mandruss  ☎ 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Both of us agree that saying that it was 2 am is unnecessary. However, if you say that it was 2 am the following morning, that is unambiguous. However, this was a quest for elegance. Perhaps that quest was in vain...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You said, Saying that it was the "following morning" seems misleading to me. I addressed that concern by adding the time-of-day, which removed the ambiguity. Now you're saying the time-of-day is unnecessary. As for your quest for an undefined and unexplained "elegance", we are not writing literature here. All we need is to follow the usual goals of good non-fiction writing, such as correct grammar, clarity, flow, avoidance of repetitiveness and redundancy, and so forth, and I don't think the status quo language does that very well at all. That "but nevertheless" seems particularly grating to my ear. I'm at a loss to understand what would satisfy you at this point, so I'm going ahead with a BOLD edit. ― Mandruss  ☎ 03:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe "morning" implies "at or after dawn, but before noon" where you live, and that's why "the following morning" seemed misleading to you. Where I live, it might mean that, or it might mean "between midnight and noon", depending on the context, so I don't see it as a problem. As I see it, my edit leaves no room for misunderstanding, even where you live. ― Mandruss  ☎ 04:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

My mom used to be a Boolean operator. ;) ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Due to the laws of probability, there are many expressions of the form X AND Y AND Z that are uniquely true about Trump. For example, Trump is the first US president who (1) is male AND (2) plays golf AND (3) is named Donald. Unless commentators make a big deal about this, we shouldn't.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. This is similar to stating that a mass shooting event was the most deadly mass shooting event since Columbine in a high school involving multiple shooters who were students there and who committed suicide before they could be apprehended. That's no exaggeration; I've seen things just like that inserted into articles several times, by editors who don't understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's policy, by the way. A few bored reporters like to report such things as if they are baseball statistics, and some editors see it and are unable to evaluate its usefulness to an encyclopedia. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)